ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY. ROGELIO
He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred
JUAN A. CELERA
A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014.
PER CURIAM
Facts:
Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent
and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into a
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding
respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma.
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified
xerox copy of the certificate of marriage.
Bansig stressed that the marriage between
respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full
legal existence when he contracted his second
marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had
never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful
authority.
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting
marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued
by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly answer
the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a
decade.
Issue:
Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
Ruling:
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these
Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence
to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders
him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as a member of
the Bar.
institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while his first
marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Considering respondent's propensity to disregard
not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of
grossly immoral conduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken
of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY.
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS
A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000.
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-
payment of bar membership dues filed against
respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a letter-
complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997,
complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a
member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Llamas, who
for a number of years now, has not indicated the
proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his
pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal
259060 but he has been using this for at least 3
years already. On the other hand, respondent, who
is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a
senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
income taxes and included in this exemption, is the
payment of membership dues.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent has misled the court
about his standing in the IBP by using the same
IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6
years and therefore liable for his actions.
Whether or not the respondent is exempt from
paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
Ruling:
Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his
pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is
also a 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.
No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership and if nonpayment covers a period of
1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the
delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It
does not matter whether or not respondent is only
engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover,
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior
citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as
determined by the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the
exemption however does not include payment of
membership or association dues.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most 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.
Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
(1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues,
whichever is later.
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA
A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015.
LEONEN, J.
Facts:
Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon
are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants, along
with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446
square meter parcel of land located in Sison,
Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale over a land owned by the
complainants. The names of petitioners appeared
as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr.
appeared as the vendee. The complainants
claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it
before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of
Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division
certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were
forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s
acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it
was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and
sister to have signed the document because they
were somewhere else at that time. Due to the
forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant
Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness,
filed a case of falsification of public document
against Atty. Cefra and Paran.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the
Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling:
Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility in notarizing a document without
requiring the presence of the affiants.
The notarization of documents ensures the
authenticity and reliability of a document. As this
court previously explained:
Notarization of a private document converts such
document into a public one, and renders it
admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Notarization is
not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those
who are not qualified or authorized to act as
notaries public from imposing upon the public and
the courts and administrative offices generally.
Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted
to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and
Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the
document given for notarization. The Deed of
Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by
Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty.
Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty.
Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just
relied on the representations of the vendee.
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a
notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes." He
contumaciously delayed compliance with this
court’s order to file a Comment.
The act of disobeying a court order constitutes
violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts"
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty.
Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed
of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the
absence of the affiants, as well as failure to
comply with an order from this court.
Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from
the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES
his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public. Respondent
is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe
penalties will be imposed for any further breach
of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO
CABUCANA, JR.
A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014.
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon
(complainant) filed a petition against Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana),
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for
falsification of public document.
In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the
would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the
heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely,
Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed
Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed
by the parties in the said case and notarized before
Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at
the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on
December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution
and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the
signatories therein testified that they signed the
instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that
because of the irregularity in the due execution of
the Compromise Agreement, there was undue
delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-
689 which caused damage and injury to
complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the
Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the
absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that
he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant further
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats
against him after the hearing of the said case in
MTCC.
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the
complaint was intended to harass him because he
was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed
against complainant before the MTCC; that
complainant had no cause of action as his right was
not violated because he was just a "would be"
buyer and not a party to the compromise
agreement; and that complainant would not suffer
any damage by the pendency of the case or by any
defects obtaining in the notarization of the
compromise agreement.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial
Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the
presence of all the parties therein
Ruling:
Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as
the Notarial Law states:
The acknowledgment shall be before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or
documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under
the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a
seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
The requirement of affiant's personal appearance
was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV
of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which
provides that:
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document –
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.
As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not
notarize a document unless the person who signs it
is the same person executing it and personally
appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the
party's free and voluntary act and deed.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent
notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS
him from being commissioned as a notary
public for two (2) years, effective immediately,
with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE,
AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPE-
DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and
RODOLFO V. FELIPE
vs.
ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL
A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013.
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Facts:
Petition for disbarment was filed against
respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal.
In A Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required
respondent to comment. Respondent received a
copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On
August 15, 1996, respondent filed an Urgent Ex-
Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File
Comment. He requested for additional period of 30
days within which to file his comment citing
numerous professional commitments. We granted
said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution.
The extended deadline passed sans respondent’s
comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants
file an Urgent Motion To Submit The Administrative
Case For Resolution Without Comment Of
Respondent claiming the respondent is deemed to
have waived his right to file comment.
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26,
2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating
Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its
Report and Recommendation.
In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner
quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he
then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the
IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made
regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it
was recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their
Petition, complainants alleged that they are co-
plaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the
defendants therein; that respondent committed
dishonesty when he stated in the defendants'
Answer that the parties therein are strangers to
each other despite knowing that the defendants are
half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and
that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against
the defendants pending before Branch 36 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Complainants also alleged that respondent
introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part
of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury
charge. Complainants insisted that by the foregoing
actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer
and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay
complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing
the damages that they suffered.
Issue:
Ruling:
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful
orders of this Court and the IBP is not only
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect
for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct
is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are
particularly called upon to obey court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in
complying with court directives being themselves
officers of the court. As an officer of the court,
respondent is expected to know that a resolution of
this Court is not a mere request but an order which
should be complied with promptly and completely.
This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
investigating arm of the Court in administrative
cases against lawyers.
Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand
with warning commensurate to the infraction
committed by the respondent.
ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A.
Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give
due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. He is WARNED that
commission of a similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246
dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549
is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of
this Resolution be entered in the personal
records of respondent as a member of the Bar,
and copies furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE
HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.,
HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA,
HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA,
AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL
SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS;
and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO
MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR.
G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013.
PER CURIAM.
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as
Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite
Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged
lack of the required qualification of 10 year law
practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in
Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
holders of a college degree, and must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections.However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the
practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on
Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion
in confirming Monsod’s appointment.
HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients, and other works where the work
done involves the determination of the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA
vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional
commission show that the interpretation of the term
practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers
employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged
in the practice of law provided that they use their
legal knowledge or talent in their respective work.
The court also cited an article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as
tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in
other works or functions to meet them. These days,
for example, most corporation lawyers are involved
in management policy formulation. Therefore,
Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with
the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then
worked for an investment bank till 1986, became
member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also
became a member of the Davide Commission in
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in
the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-
manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the
nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The
power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the
only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the
evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to
exercise its corrective power since there is no such
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA VS SEGUNDINO D.
MANIWANG
A.M. No. 1608. August 14, 1981.
AQUINO, J.
Facts:
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted sometime
in October, 1970 at Cebu City. Magdalena was then a
medical technology student in the Cebu Institute of
Medicine while Segundino was a law student in the
San Jose Recoletos College. They became
sweethearts, on March 1971, Magdalena and
Segundino had sexual congress. Thereafter, they had
repeated acts of cohabitation. Segundino started
telling his acquaintances that he and Magdalena were
secretly married.
In 1972 Segundino transferred his residence to
Padada, Davao del Sur. He continued his studies to
Davao City. Magdalena discovered in January 1973
that she was pregnant. The two went to her
hometown, Ivisan, Capiz to apprise Magdalena’s
parents that they were married although they were
not.
The respondent convinced Magdalena’s father to
have the church wedding deferred until after he had
passed the bar examinations where he secured his
birth certificate preparatory to applying for a marriage
license.
Segundino passed the bar examinations that was
released April 25, 1975. After the oathtaking,
Segundino stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Magdalena went to Davao to contact Segundino.
Segundino told her that they could not get married for
lack of money.
In December 1975 Magdalena followed Segundino in
Bukidnon only to find out that their marriage could not
take place because he had married Erlinda Ang.
Segundino followed Magdalena in Davao and inflicted
physical injuries upon her because she had a
confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang.
Magdalena Arciga then filed a disbarment case on the
ground of grossly immoral conduct because he
refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community"
Issue:
Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred and be
held liable for grossly immoral conduct.
Ruling:
No, Segundino Maniwang shouldn’t be disbarred. The
Supreme Court found that respondent’s refusal to
marry the complainant was not as corrupt or
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The complaint
for disbarment against the respondent is hereby
dismissed.
KHAN vs SIMBILLO
A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone
number and pretended to be an interested party.
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or
custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
husband charges a fee of P48, 000.00, half of
which is payable at the time of filing of the case and
the other half after a decision thereon has been
rendered.
Additional research by the Office of the Court
Administrator and the Public Information Office
revealed that similar advertisements were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The
Philippine Star.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in
his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of
his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but
argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation
are not prohibited acts.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court.
Also, practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
a secondary consideration. The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they
owe to themselves. The following elements
distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument
is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the
administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized
by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
with their clients.
There is no question that respondent committed the
acts complained of. He himself admitted that he
caused the publication of the advertisements. The
Court ruled that respondent RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules
2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. Also, he is suspended from the
practice of law for one year.
LINSANGAN vs TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009.
CORONA, J.
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro
Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help
of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent
them text messages.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing
Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the said calling card.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
RULING:
Yes. Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing
Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in
the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was
connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s
actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was
benefited.
Moreover, Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. By recruiting Atty.Linsangan’s clients,
Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical,
predatory overstep into another’s legal practice.
The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04
and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court and he was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year.
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs. ATTY. ALFREDO
CASTILLO
A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003.
PER CURIAM
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three
children when he had an affair with Carmelita
Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to
1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and
before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got
pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an
affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
support which did not materialize after the birth of
the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for
reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the
paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In
his defense, the latter presented different
certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer
and proving his good moral character. His wife
even submitted a handwritten letter stating his
amicability as a husband and father despite the
affair. More than a year since the original decision
rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his
willingness to support the child to the Court and
attached a photocopy of post-dated checks
addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to
December 2005 in the amount of Php 2,000.00
each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of
gross immoral conduct, making him punishable of
Indefinite Suspension.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent,
Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral
conduct and should be punished with the penalty of
Indefinite Suspension. 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 self-
stultification.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance
and active service to the community is a just and
reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of
two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that
Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper
case.
FEDERICO N. RAMOS vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A.
NGASEO
A.C. No. 6210. December 9, 2004.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for suspension of respondent Atty.
Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the
Civil Code by demanding from his client, complainant
Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of 1,000 square
meters of land, a litigated property, as payment for his
appearance fees.
Sometime in 1998, complainant Federico Ramos
went to respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo’s Makati
office to engage his services as counsel in a case
involving a piece of land in San Carlos, Pangasinan.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
acceptance fee of P20, 000.00, appearance fee of P1,
000.00 per hearing and the cost of meals,
transportation and other incidental expenses.
Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay
the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance
fees.
On September 16, 1999, complainant went to the
respondent’s office to inquire about the status of the
case. Respondent informed him that the decision was
adverse to them because a congressman exerted
pressure upon the trial judge. Respondent however
assured him that they could still appeal the adverse
judgment and asked for the additional amount of P3,
850.00 and another P2, 000.00 on September 26,
2000 as allowance for research made.
Although an appeal was filed, complainant however
charges the respondent of purposely failing to submit
a copy of the summons and copy of the assailed
decision. Subsequently, complainant learned that the
respondent filed the notice of appeal 3 days after the
lapse of the reglementary period.
On January 29, 2003, complainant received a
demand-letter from the respondent asking for the
delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he
allegedly promised as payment for respondent’s
appearance fee.

Respondent further contends that he can collect the
unpaid appearance fee even without a written
contract on the basis of the principle of quantum
meruit. He claims that his acceptance and
appearance fees are reasonable because a Makati
based legal practitioner, would not handle a case for
an acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and P1,000.00
per court appearance.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo, violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding the
delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which was the
subject of litigation.
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Ngaseo violated Rule 20.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides “Rule
20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.”
Rrespondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the
legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a
warning that repetition of the same act will be
dealt with more severely.
ROSARIO JUNIO vs ATTY. SALVADOR M. GRUPO
A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001
MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against
Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice and gross
misconduct.
Rosario N. Junio alleged that sometime in 1995, she
engaged the services of Atty. Grupo for the
redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 20394 registered in the name
of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes,
and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol.
On 21 August 1995, Junio entrusted to respondent
the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the
redemption of the aforesaid property.
Notwithstanding the foregoing and for no valid reason,
respondent did not redeem the property; as a result of
which the right of redemption was lost and the
property was eventually forfeited.
Because of respondent’s failure to redeem the
property, complainant had demanded the return of the
money which she entrusted to the former for the
above-stated purpose. Despite repeated demands
made by the complainant and without justifiable
cause, respondent has continuously refused to refund
the money entrusted to him.
The family of the complainant and that of the
respondent were very close and intimate with each
other. Complainant, as well as two of her sisters, had
served respondents family as household helpers for
many years when they were still in Manila. Grupo also
stated that the basis of his rendering legal services
was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a
friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded
that there was no atty-client relationship existing
between them.
IBP found respondent liable for violation of Rule 16.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their
clients unless the latter’s interests are protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. The
Investigating Commissioner found that respondent
failed to pay his clients money.
Issue:
Whether or not there was an attorney-client
relationship.
Ruling:
Yes. There was an attorney-client relationship
between Junio and Grupo. A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the client’s interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice (Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
Responsibility).This rule is intended to prevent the
lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the
client.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of
such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took
advantage of his influence by not returning the
money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short
of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary
borrower of money is required by law to repay his
loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose
conduct serves as an example.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty of
violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and orders him suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) month
and to pay to respondent, within 30 days from
notice, the amount of P25,000.00 with interest at
the legal rate, computed from December 12,1996.
In Re: Atty. David Briones
A.C. No. 5486. August 15, 2001
PUNO, J.
Facts:
This matter arose from the continued failure of
Atty. David P. Briones, counsel for accused-
appellant in G.R. No. 130965 (People of the
Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan) pending
before the Second Division of this Court, to file
the required appellant's brief.
The notice to file appellant's brief was mailed to
Atty. Briones and was given thirty (30) days from
receipt of the notice within which to file the brief.
However, Atty. Briones failed to file the required
brief within the period. The Court ordered Atty.
Briones to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such
failure and to submit the required brief within ten
(10) days from notice. Atty. Briones failed to comply
with the Court's directive within the specified
period. Copy of said resolution was returned to the
Court unserved without specific reason.
The Court referred the matter of the repeated
failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation,
report and recommendation. Through letter the IBP
Commissioner required Atty. Briones to file his
Comment within 5 days from receipt of the said
letter. Atty. Briones, however, did not file any
Comment. The Commissioner recommended that
Atty. Briones be suspended for 6 months, which
subsequently adopted and approved by the IBP
Board of Governors. Atty. Briones filed with the
IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation in
which he claimed that he filed a Comment on the
administrative case but the same was not
considered by the investigating commissioner. The
IBP however denied the motion. Thereafter Atty.
Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation and
explained that he failed to file an appellant’s brief
because he never received a copy of the resolution
requiring him to file said brief. If ever a copy was
received by his secretary, the latter was not able to
give it to him because he had already ceased
practicing law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Briones should be suspended
from the practice of law.
Ruling:
YES. The failure of the counsel to submit the
required brief within the reglementary period is an
offense that entails disciplinary action. His failure to
file an appellant’s has caused the appeal to remain
inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his
client, the accused himself, who continues to
languish in jail pending the resolution of his case.
The accused in a criminal case has the right to a
swift and just disposition of his case. Lawyers are
obliged to protect, not defeat, such right. The
explanation of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply
with the Court’s directive is unsatisfactory. Such
omission can be attributed to pure negligence on
the part of Atty. Briones which we deem
inexcusable.
It is evident that respondent violated Rule 18.03
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility to wit:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
He cannot deny that his office received a copy of
the Court’s resolution ordering him to submit an
appellant’s brief. The registry return card shows
that the notice to file appellant’s brief was received
by the addressee. To exonerate himself from
liability, Atty. Briones claims that his secretary did
not forward to him the mail matters received in his
office. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to
exercise due diligence in the practice of his
profession. He should have taken the initiative to
check with her if there are important matters
requiring his action or attention. Neither is the
cessation of his law practice an excuse for his
failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true
that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he
still could not ignore the directives coming from the
Court. It does not appear from the records that Atty.
Briones has withdrawn his appearance. It should be
stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s fidelity to
the cause of his client requires him to be ever
mindful of the responsibilities that should be
expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best
efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the
interest of his client. The Code of Professional
Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence and he should
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months effective
immediately.
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL
E. MACALALAD
A.C. No. 8158. February 24, 2010.
BRION, J.
Facts:
Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division
of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban
City. Although he is in public service, the DENR
Secretary has given him the authority to engage
in the practice of law.
While on official visit to Eastern Samar in
October 2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to
Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz
Cabo-Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon
asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling
of a parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern
Samar and owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. For
a consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos
(P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task
to be completed within a period of eight (8)
months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Issue:
Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the
remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon Ruling:
received the certificate of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for

registration over the property.

Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty.

Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case
six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of

negligence in handling his case.

Ruling:

YES. In administrative cases against lawyers, the

quantum of proof required is preponderance of
evidence which the complainant has the burden
to discharge. The Court considered the evidence
presented and fully satisfies the required
quantum of proof in proving Atty. Macalalads
negligence.

Respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility provides for
the rule on negligence and states:

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

In addition to the above finding of negligence, the

Court dound Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account
for all the money received from the client. In this
case, Atty. Macalalad did not immediately
account for and promptly return the money he
received.

We impose on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the

penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION
from the practice of law for violations of Rule
16.03 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, effective upon
finality of this Decision. Atty. Macalalad is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs ATTY. GERARDO F.

LARA
A.C. No. 7024. January 30, 2009.
BRION, J.

Facts: