RURAL BANK OF PILLA, respondent.

SILAY,

INC., complainant,

vs. ATTY.

ERNESTO

H.

Respondent executed a REM in favour of the complainant over a parcel of land in Sagay, Negros Occidental, as an attorney in fact of the registered owners, Pedro Torres and Oscar Granada together with an SPA which was purportedly authorized by the owners to mortgage the land in favour of the complainant. The complainant released a loan in the amount of 91,427 Php in favour of the respondent. Later, the complainant found out that the respondent was not authorized by Oscar Granada to mortgage the land when he was joined as defendant for removal of cloud on title with preliminary injunction and damages. Granada specifically denied having executed an SPA to respondent to support the said loan. The trial court decided against the respondent, and held that the SPA was forged and falsified because the spouses Granada have not signed the same. The respondent did not appeal from the said judgment. The foregoing acts of the respondent in presenting to the complainant Bank a forged and falsified Power of Attorney for the purpose of obtaining a loan is a betrayal of his oath as a lawyer to do falsehood to no man and by his conduct herein has forfeited his right to continue further in the practice of law. Respondent refuted the charges of deceit and gross misconduct against him. Upon the instance of the Court, respondent filed his comment refuting the charges of deceit and gross misconduct against him. Respondent denied employing any deceit or misrepresentation in obtaining a loan from complainant rural bank. According to respondent, he did not know that the signature of Oscar Granada on the special power of attorney appointing him (respondent) as attorney-in-fact was forged. The special power of attorney purportedly authorized respondent to mortgaged the parcel of land in Sagay, Negros Occidental in favor of complainant rural bank. Respondent also claimed that if indeed said document was forged, he was not a party to the forgery. IBP recommended he be suspended for 5 years which was later reduced to 3. Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct. Held: SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS Since respondent actually benefited from the falsified document, he is presumed to have a hand in the falsification of the same. Respondent miserably failed to rebut this presumption with his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the forgery. The Court cannot give credence to respondents negative assertion that he did not know that the sp ecial power of attorney issued in his favor was falsified. As a lawyer, respondent knows or ought to know that parties to a

public document must personally appear before the notary public to attest that the same is their own free act and deed. In utter disregard of this requirement, respondent caused the special power of attorney to be notarized without the parties appearing before the notary public. Thereafter, respondent presented the same to complainant rural bank in order to obtain a loan therefrom. It is thus apparent that respondent had a hand in the falsification of the document especially considering that it was he who chiefly benefited from it. Indeed, the settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. Further, if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.[ Respondents acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 thereof, which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The fact that the conduct pertained to respondents private dealings with complainant rural bank is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.[9] Considering the foregoing, the recommendation of the IBP that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years is approved.

CRISTINO G. CALUB, complainant, vs. ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER, respondent. Facts: In the morning of January 20, 1975, while complainant was away, respondent Atty. Abraham A. Suller went to the complainant's abode in Aringay, La Union ostensibly to borrow a blade. As the respondent was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the complainant's wife let him in. Thereafter, respondent began touching her in different parts of her body. When she protested, respondent threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. At that moment, complainant returned home to get money to pay for real estate taxes. When he entered the house, he saw his wife and respondent having sexual intercourse on the bed. 1 She was kicking respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms and other leg, preventing her from defending herself. Complainant filed with the Municipal Court in La Union a criminal complaint for rape against respondent. The case was later remanded to the Court of First Instance, La Union. On 1975, Cristino G. Calub filed with the Supreme Court the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Abraham A. Suller. Respondent denied the accusation as a fabrication. In 1992, the Committee issued an order terminating the proceedings and considering the case submitted for resolution as notice to complainant remained unserved while respondent failed to appear despite due notice. On March 3, 1993, the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution recommending that the disciplinary penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year be meted on respondent. Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and should be disbarred.

Held: DISBARRED The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of this administrative case. The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly that of the complainant suffice to show that respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor's wife without her consent in her very home. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. 12 In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient punishment for the immoral act of respondent. The rape of his neighbor's wife constituted serious moral depravity even if his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He is not worthy to remain a member of the bar. The privilege to practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally.13 "Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity." WHEREFORE, respondent Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from the practise of law. Let his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, complainant, vs. ATTY. HENRY ADAZA, respondent. Facts: Complainant averred that respondent obtained a loan from the former and, to secure the repayment thereof, drew and issued two BPI Family Bank checks. When the first check was presented for payment upon maturity, the same was dishonored for insufficient funds. According to complainant, respondent, acting with malice and deceit, dated the second check "January 24, 1996," so that, once presented for payment, it would be, considering, in passing, that the loan was incurred on 23 November 1996, a stale check. She alleged that, despite repeated verbal and written demands, respondent had failed to make good his obligation. Despite proper notice to respondent requiring him to file his answer to the complaint, respondent continued to ignore the matter. Finally, on 2002 the case was set for hearing by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The complainant appeared. Respondent did not show up despite his having been duly notified of the hearing by personal service effected. Respondents failure to appear prompted the Commission on Bar Discipline to grant the request of complainant to allow her to adduce evidence ex-parte. An order was issued setting the proceedings on 18 March 2002 for such reception of evidence. A copy of the order was served on respondent on 28 February 2002 at his given address. A criminal complaint for BP 22 was filed against him but he successfully evaded the warrant of arrest. IBP recommended for Adazas suspension for 1 year. Issue: WON respondent Atty. Henry Adaza is guilty of gross misconduct and as being unfit to continue his membership in the Bar and should be suspended for 1 year. Held: 1 YEAR SUSPENSION Respondents issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years is appalling and hardly deserves compassion from the Court. A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office.1 The word "conduct" used in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyers professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although not connected with his professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not limitative2 and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.3 Such misdeed puts his moral fibre, as well as his fitness to continue in the advocacy of law, in serious doubt.

Emilio Grande vs Evangeline de Silva Facts: Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina against Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings, respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to complainant a check in the amount of P144,768.00, drawn against her account with the Philippine National Bank, as settlement of the civil aspect of the case against her client. Complainant refused to accept the check, but respondent assured him that the same will be paid upon its presentment to her drawee bank. She manifested that as a lawyer, she would not issue a check which is not sufficiently funded. Thus, respondent was prevailed upon by complainant to accept the check. Consequently, he desisted from participating as a complaining witness in the criminal case, which led to the dismissal of the same and the release of the accused, Sergio Natividad. When complainant deposited the check he was told the account was closed. He demanded the payment of the check from respondent which she ignored so she filed a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina against Atty. De Silva and a disbarment case of respondent for deceit and violation of the Lawyers Oath. IBP found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyers Oath. Thus, he recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. Issue: WON respondent should be suspended. Held: The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to accept her personal check by way of settlement for the civil liability of her client, Sergio Natividad, with the assurance that the check will have sufficient funds when presented for payment. In doing so, she deceived complainant into withdrawing his complaint against her client in exchange for a check which she drew against a closed account. It is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in issuing a bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath, for which she should be accordingly penalized.Such an act constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties for such malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of the Rules of Court, to wit: SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme

Court 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Since this qualification is a condition precedent to a license to enter upon the practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyers moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9] The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment,[10] because it is important that members of the legal brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of morality.[11] Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the bar, for a lawyers professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.[12] Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately refusing to accept the notices served on her betrays a deplorably willful character or disposition which stains the nobility of the legal profession.[13] Her conduct not only underscores her utter lack of respect for authority; it also brings to the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw in her psyche which renders highly questionable her moral fitness to continue in the practice of law: a defiance for law and order which is at the very core of her profession. Such defiance is anathema to those who seek a career in the administration of justice because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent even endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even simple directives? Indeed, the first and foremost command of the Code of Professional Responsibility could not be any clearer: CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Needless to state, respondents persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her with not even an explanation for doing so is contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. She can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients.[14] We cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession. SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS.