Ui vs. Atty. Bonifacio A.C. No. 3319.

June 8, 2000
FACTS: Leslie Ui filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio on
the grounds of immorality, for carrying an illicit relationship with the complainants husband,
Carlos Ui. Respondent contends that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit since they
were married abroad and that when she discoered Carlos Uis true ciil status, she cut off all
her ties with him.
SSU!: !hether or not respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she
deseres to be barred from the practice of law.
"!#$: "o. Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon
discoering his true ciil status belies #ust that alleged moral indifference and proes that she
had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
n %e: Cunanan, et. a&. %eso&ution 'a(c) 18, 19*+
FACTS: Unsuccessful candidates who obtained aerages of a few percentages lower than
those admitted to the Bar influenced the Congress on the passage of $enate Bill "o.%& which
would reduce the passing general aerage in bar e'aminations to () per cent effectie since
%*+,. -he .resident allowed the bill to become a law under R.A. *(& without his signature.
After its approal, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission
to the bar ino/ing its proisions. 0oweer, some doubts hae been e'pressed to the alidity
of the said law.
SSU!: !hether or not Republic Act "o. *(& is constitutional.
"!#$: Unconstitutional.
%. -he public interest demands of legal profession ade1uate preparation and efficiency,
precisely more so as legal problem eoled by the times become more difficult. An
ade1uate legal preparation is one of the ital re1uisites for the practice of law that
should be deeloped constantly and maintained firmly. -o the legal profession is
entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and ciil liberties. -o approe
officially of those inade1uately prepared indiiduals to dedicate themseles to such
a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger.
&. In the #udicial system from which ours has been deried, the act of admitting,
suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly #udicial. -he Constitution has not conferred on Congress
and this -ribunal e1ual responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of
law. -he primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recogni2es
continue to reside in this Court.
3. -he law in 1uestion has been found to suffer from the fatal defect of being class
legislation, and thus, arbitrary and unreasonable.

n %e: ,ua(i-a ,% No. #.11/9, Janua(y 8, 1913
FACTS: Relying upon the proisions of section & of Act "o. %4*(, 5uari6a see/s admission
to the bar, without ta/ing the prescribed e'amination, on the ground that he holds the office of
proincial fiscal for the .roince of Batanes. -he said Act so proides that those who hae
been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the Islands under the soereignty of $pain or
of the United $tates may practice law in the .hilippines without an e'amination, proided that,
prior to the passage of the Act, they are, not to mention the enumerated others, proincial
fiscals.
SSU!: !hether or not 5uari6a should be authori2ed to practice law in the .hilippines
without ta/ing the Bar e'amination.
"!#$: 5uari6a failed the bar e'amination in %*)( with an aerage of (%7, falling four
points short of the re1uired (47. -he court declared that they would be delin1uent in the
performance of their duty to the public and to the bar, if they should grant him a license to
practice law in the courts of these Islands, without first satisfying themseles that despite his
failure to pass the e'amination on that occasion, he now 8possesses the necessary
1ualifications of learning and ability.8
-he court well thought9out the fact that when he too/ the e'amination he fell only four points
short of the necessary grade to entitle him to a license to practice: and since that time he has
held the responsible office of goernor of the .roince of $orsogon and, presumably, for
giing eidence of such mar/ed ability in the performance of the duties, was appointed to the
office of proincial fiscal. Conse1uently, waiing the ordinary re1uired e'amination had been
#ustified, proided that he offers satisfactory eidence of his proficiency in a special
e'amination by a committee of the court upon his application.
0o(eta vs. Atty. Si12&iciano A.C. No. 3+92. Nove14e( 18, 200+
FACTS: ;oreta filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. $impliciano for notari2ing
documents after his commission as notary public e'pired.
SSU!: !hether or not Atty. $implicianos actions constitute gross misconduct for which he
should be barred permanently from being commissioned as "otary .ublic and should be
suspended from the practice of law.
"!#$: <es. "otari2ation is inested with substantie public interest, such that only those
who are 1ualified or authori2ed may act as notaries public. "otaries public must obsere with
utmost care, the basic re1uirements in the performance of their duties. -he Court has
characteri2ed a lawyers act of notari2ing documents without the re1uisite commission
therefore as =reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of
falsification of public documents.> ?or such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned
erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, reocation of the notarial commission
and dis1ualification from acting as such, and een disbarment.
0ence, Atty. $impliciano was barred permanently from being commissioned as "otary .ublic
and was suspended from the practice of law for two years.
#insan5an vs. Atty. To&entino A.C. No. 33/2. Se2te14e( +, 2009
FACTS: Linsangan, Linsangan @ Linsangan Law office filed a disbarment complaint against
Atty. -olentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional serices. -olentino
was alleged to hae persistently calling and te'ting their clients and coninced to transfer legal
representation with the help of paralegal Labiano by promising financial assistance and
e'peditious collection of claims. -he complainant also presented the respondents calling card
as eidence of adertising legal serices.
SSU!: !hether or not Atty. -olentino is guilty of encroachment of professional serice,
solicitation of clients and adertising his serice for which he should be suspended from the
practice of law.
"!#$: Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business:
lawyers should not adertise their talents as merchants adertise their wares. -o allow a
lawyer to adertise his talent or s/ill is to commerciali2e the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of serice to which eery member of the bar is called.
Labianos calling card contained the phrase =with financial assistance.> -he phrase was
clearly used to entice clients Awho already had representationB to change counsels with a
promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
-he sworn statements of Linsangans clients, who are ery same persons coa'ed by Labiano
and referred to respondents office proed that respondent solicited legal business and
committed an unethical, predatory oerstep into anothers legal practice.
Atty. -olentino was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
seerely.
Cayetano vs. 'onso6 201 SC%A 210
FACTS: Cayetano 1uestioned the appointment of Consod as a Chairman of Comelec on the
grounds that the latter does not possess the re1uired 1ualification of haing been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.
SSU!: !hether or not Consod possessed the 1ualification for the position of Chairman of
the CDCELEC, to wit, haing been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
"!#$: -he practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when heF =. . . for aluable consideration engages in the
business of adising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law,
or appears in a representatie capacity as an adocate in proceedings pending or prospectie,
before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted
by law or authori2ed to settle controersies. Dtherwise stated, one who, in a representatie
capacity, engages in the business of adising clients as to their rights under the law, or while
so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is
engaged in the practice of law.>
.ractice of law means any actiity, in or out of court, which re1uires the application of law,
legal procedure, /nowledge, training and e'perience. 8-o engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. 5enerally, to practice law is to
gie notice or render any /ind of serice, which deice or serice re1uires the use in any
degree of legal /nowledge or s/ill.
Consod, as a member of the .hilippine Bar, who had wor/ed as a lawyer9economist, a
lawyer9manager, a lawyer9entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer9negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer9legislator of both the rich and the poor, is considered to hae been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years. 0ence, he is 1ualified for the position of chairman of
CDCELEC.
B' No. 13/8: $acanay, $ec. 1/, 200/
FACTS: Atty. Ben#amin Gacanay went to Canada in %**H for medication purposes. 0e
applied for Canadian Citi2enship to aail Canadas free medical aid program, and he became a
Canadian citi2en in &))+. 0e re9ac1uired his .hilippine citi2enship pursuant to Republic Act
*&&4 of the Citi2enship Retention and Re9Ac1uisition Act of &))3. 0e then returned to the
.hilippines with the intention to resume his practice of law.
SSU!: !hether or not Ben#amin Gacanay may still resume his practice of law in the
.hilippines.
"!#$: <es. As a well settled rule, the practice of law and other professions in the .hilippines
are resered and limited only to ?ilipino citi2ens. .hilippine citi2enship is a re1uirement for
admission to the bar. !hen Gacanay became a Canadian citi2en in &))+, he ceased to hae
the priilege to practice law in the .hilippines. 0oweer, under RA *&&4, a ?ilipino lawyer
who becomes a citi2en of another country is deemed neer to hae lost his .hilippine
citi2enship if he reac1uires his ?ilipino citi2enship in accordance with RA *&&4. 0ence, when
Gacanay reac1uires his ?ilipino citi2enship in &)),, his membership to the .hilippine bar was
deemed to hae neer been terminated. <et, Gacanay must still comply with seeral
conditions before he can resume his practice of law, to wit: the updating and payment in full of
the annual membership dues in the IB.: the payment of professional ta': the completion of at
least 3, credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education: and reta/ing of the lawyers
oath.
A&a7i vs. A&auya 238 SC%A 339
FACTS: Alawi filed an administratie complaint against Alauya, a $haria counsel, for
usurpation of the title of 8attorney,8 which only regular members of the .hilippine Bar may
properly use.
Alauya #ustified his use of the title, 8attorney,8 by the assertion that it is 8le'ically
synonymous8 with 8Counsellors9at9law8, a title to which $hariIa lawyers hae a rightful claim,
adding that he prefers the title of 8attorney8 because 8counsellor8 is often mista/en for
8councilor,8 8/onsehal8 or the Caranao term 8consial,8 connoting a local legislator beholden
to the mayor.
SSU!: !hether or not Alauya, a member of the $haria bar, can use the title of Attorney
without being a regular member of the IB..
"!#$: "o. -his Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the $hariIa
Bar are not full9fledged members of the .hilippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before
$hariIa courts. -he title of 8attorney8 is resered to those who, haing obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and successfully ta/en the Bar E'aminations, hae been admitted to
the Integrated Bar of the .hilippines and remain members thereof in good standing.
n %e: ,a(cia 2 SC%A 98*
FACTS: Arturo E. 5arcia is a ?ilipino citi2en, born in Bacolod City, had ta/en and finished in
$pain the law course graduating as 8Licenciado en derecho8 and was allowed to practice the
law profession in $pain. 0e contends that under a -reaty between .hilippines and $pain, those
who are allowed to practice law in $pain shall also be allowed to practice law in the
.hilippines, and ice ersa. 0e insisted that he is entitled to practice the law profession in the
.hilippines without submitting to the re1uired bar e'aminations.
SSU!: !hether treaty can modify regulations goerning admission to the .hilippine Bar.
"!#$: -he right to practice law which arouse from the treaty cannot be ino/ed by the
applicant. -he said treaty was intended to goern ?ilipino citi2ens desiring to practice their
profession in $pain, and the citi2ens of $pain desiring to practice their profession in the
.hilippines. .etitioner is a ?ilipino citi2en desiring to practice profession in the .hilippines,
therefore, he is sub#ect to the laws of the .hilippines and is not entitled to the priileges
e'tended to $panish nationals desiring to practice in the .hilippines.
?urthermore, the treaty is not intended to modify the laws and regulations goerning
admission to the practice of law in the .hilippines, for the reason that the E'ecutie
Gepartment may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogatie of the $upreme Court to
promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the .hilippines, and the power to
repeal, alter or supplement such rules is being resered only to the Congress of the
.hilippines.
0ence, the said treaty cannot modify the regulations on the admission to the .hilippine Bar.
$e #eon vs. CA 383 SC%A 213
FACTS: Ge Leon filed a complaint for sum of money against spouses Aelino and Estelita
Batungbacal. -he R-C ruled the case in faor of the complainant. -he counsel of record for
respondent receied the decision on June ,, %**( and, respondent Aelino, with their counsel
filed a notice of appeal on June %*, %**(. In a notice of appearance on June &4, %**(, a new
counsel appeared in collaboration with the counsel of record, then respondent Estelita filed a
separate notice of appeal through the new counsel. -he two appeals were admitted and were
doc/eted as one in the Courts of Appeal. Ge Leon filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the
ground that it was filed out of time basing his contention on the appeal filed by Estelita
through the new counsel. -he motion to dismiss was denied by CA. 0ence, this petition for
certiorari and prohibition.
SSU!: !hether or not the appeal made by Estelita through the new counsel, and not through
the counsel of record, be the basis in determining if appeal should be admitted by CA.
"!#$: !hen a party is represented by a counsel of record, serice of orders and notices must
be made upon said attorney and notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of
the record, not a notice in law. -he e'ception to this rule is when serice upon the party
himself has been ordered by the court. In this case, it does not appear that there was any
substitution of counsel or that serice upon priate respondent Estelita Batungbacal had been
specifically ordered by the trial court: hence, the counsel of record for the priate respondents
is presumed to be their counsel on appeal and the only one authori2ed to receie court
processes.
.riate respondents appeal had been ta/en within the reglementary period since Aelino
Batungbacal, through the counsel of record, had filed a notice of appeal on June %*, %**( or
%3 days from their counsels receipt of the decision on June ,, %**(. Respondent spouses
haing been #ointly sued under a common cause of action, an appeal made by the husband
inures to the benefit of the wife. -he notice of appeal filed by Estelita was a superfluity, the
appeal haing been perfected earlier by her husband.
Atty. 'ane vs. Ju65e Be&en A' No. %TJ.08.2119, June 30, 2008
FACTS: .etitioner Atty. Celin G.C. Cane filed a complaint charging respondent Judge
Cedel Arnaldo B. Belen of demeaning, humiliating, and berating him during a hearing where
Cane was counsel for the plaintiff. Guring the proceedings, Belen as/ed Cane about the
latters law school. !hen Cane answered that he came from Canuel L. Kue2on Uniersity
ACLKUB, Belen told himF L-hen youre not from U.. -hen you cannot e1uate yourself to me
because there is a saying and I /now this, not all law students are created e1ual, not all law
schools are created e1ual, not all lawyers are created e1ual despite what the $upreme Being
that we all are created e1ual in 0is form and substance.
SSU!: !hether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing
constitute conduct unbecoming of a #udge and a iolation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
"!#$: -he Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of
/nowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar E'aminations which the Court administers, ta/ing
of the Lawyers oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be
competent to discharge his functions and duties as an officer of the court, irrespectie of
where he obtained his law degree.
A #udge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. 0e went out of
bounds when he engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.
-he Court reminded members of the bench that een on the face of boorish behaior from
those they deal with, they ought to conduct themseles in a manner befitting gentlemen and
high officers of the court.
-he court reprimanded the respondent for haing e'hibited a conduct unbecoming of a #udge.
n %e: 'e&in5 +31 SC%A 1+3
FACTS: Celendre2 filed a petition to dis1ualify 0aron $. Celing from ta/ing the Bar
e'aminations on the grounds that Celing did not disclose in his petition to ta/e the Bar
E'aminations that he has three pending criminal cases.
Celing e'plained that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy
Coson, their former professor, adised him to settle misunderstanding and belieing in good
faith that the case would be settled since the Judge who gae adice has moral ascendancy
oer them, he considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as =closed and
terminated.>
SSU!: !hether or not Celings concealment of crimes which he belieed to hae been
dismissed constitutes a ground for him to be dis1ualified from ta/ing the bar.
"!#$: <es. 0e should hae /nown that only the court of competent #urisdiction can dismiss
cases, not a retired #udge nor a law professor. ?urthermore, granting arguendo that these cases
were already dismissed, he is still re1uired to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his
good moral character.
.ractice of law is not a matter of right but merely a priilege bestowed upon indiiduals who
are not only learned in the law but who are also /nown to possess good moral character.
-he disclosure re1uirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory
eidence of good moral character of the applicant. -he nature of whateer cases are pending
against the applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he is endowed with the
moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the e'istence of such cases, the applicant
then flun/s the test of fitness een if the cases are ultimately proen to be unwarranted or
insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
n %e: 89aeta, %o1u&o, !tc. 92 SC%A 1
FACTS: .etitions were filed praying that the use of a deceased partners name be allowed to
be continuously used in the law firm name.
.etitioner contends that in regulating other professions, such as accountancy and engineering,
the legislature has authori2ed the adoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use
of the name of a deceased partner: the legislatie authori2ation gien to those engaged in the
practice of accountancy M a profession re1uiring the same degree of trust and confidence in
respect of clients as that implicit in the relationship of attorney and client M to ac1uire and use
a trade name, strongly indicates that there is no fundamental policy that is offended by the
continued use by a firm of professionals of a firm name which includes the name of a
deceased partner, at least where such firm name has ac1uired the characteristics of a 8trade
name.8
SSU!: !hether or not the name of a deceased partner should be allowed to be continuously
used in the law firm name. As the other profession do so.
"!#$: "o. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be li/ened to partnerships formed by
other professionals or for business. ?or one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows
the use of a trade name in connection with the practice of accountancy. A partnership for the
practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or association for a particular
purpose.... It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or of
holding property.8 -hus, it has been stated that 8the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade
name in law practice is improper.>
-he right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a
priilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
1ualifications duly ascertained and certified. -he right does not only presuppose in its
possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the e'ercise of a special priilege,
highly personal and parta/ing of the nature of a public trust.
C(u9 vs. 'ina *22 SC%A 38/
FACTS: ?erdinand Cru2 filed a formal Entry of Appearance as a priate prosecutor in a
criminal case where his father is a complaining witness. -he petitioner #ustifies his appearance
based on $ection 3+ of Rules %3H where a non9lawyer is allowed to appear in inferior courts as
an agent or friend of a party litigant. 0e also described himself to be a third year law student
appearing with the conformity of a public prosecutor.
SSU!: !hether or not Cru2, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
friend of a party litigant.
"!#$: <es. It was well settled rule that a law student is re1uired to be under the direct
superision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar for him to be allowed to appear
before an inferior court. It is, howeer, different when a law student act as an agent or friend
of a party, in such case, the law student may appear before an inferior court without the
superision of the member of the bar.
n %e: ,uitie((e9 * SC%A 331
FACTS: Atty. 5utierre2 was conicted of murder and was sentenced with reclusion perpetua.
0e was granted a conditional pardon by the .resident. -he widow of $amaco filed a
disbarment case against 5utierre2 by reason of the latters coniction of a crime inoling
moral turpitude.
SSU!: !hether or not 5utierre2 may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted
pardon.
"!#$: <es. 5utierre2 must be #udged upon the fact of his coniction for murder without
regard to the pardon which he ino/ed in defense. -he crime was murder and the degree of
moral turpitude inoled is such as to #ustify his being purged from the profession.
Df all classes and professions, lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. 0e is their
sworn serant: and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and oerride the laws, to
trample them under foot and to ignore the ery bonds of society, argues the recreancy to his
position and office, and sets a pernicious e'ample to the insubordinate and dangerous elements
of the body politic.
:eo2&e vs. Tuan6a 181 SC%A 392
FACTS: -uanda was conicted of iolation of the Bouncing Chec/ Law and was suspended
from the practice for indefinite period of time. 0e filed a Cotion to Lift Drder of $uspension
arguing that the issuance of the bouncing chec/s does not relate to the e'ercise of her legal
profession.
SSU!: !hether or not the issuance of bouncing chec/s which does not relate to the e'ercise
of legal profession may be a ground for suspension from the practice.
"!#$: <es. -he crimes of which respondent was conicted also import deceit and iolation
of her attorneyIs oath and the Code of .rofessional Responsibility under both of which she was
bound to 8obey the laws of the land.8 Coniction of a crime inoling moral turpitude might
relate to the e'ercise of the profession of a lawyer: howeer, it certainly relates to and affects
the good moral character of a person conicted of such offense. In Celendre2 . Gecena, this
Court stressed thatF the nature of the office of an attorney at law re1uires that she shall be a
person of good moral character. -his 1ualification is not only a condition precedent to an
admission to the practice of law: its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law.
Sanc)e9 vs. So1oso +12 SC%A *39
FACTS: Atty. $omoso issued his personal chec/s in payment for his medical bills to Gr.
$anche2 but when deposited, the chec/s were dishonored. Complainant immediately met with
and informed respondent about it. Respondent promised to redeem the dishonored chec/s in
cash but he neer did.
SSU!: !hether or not the acts of Atty. $omoso constitute misconduct that should suspend
him from the practice of law.
"!#$: <es. !hen respondent paid, with a personal chec/ from a ban/ account which he
/new had already been closed, the person who attended to his medical needs and persisted in
refusing to settle his due obligation despite demand, respondent e'hibited an e'tremely low
regard to his commitment to the oath he has ta/en when he #oined his peers, seriously and
irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession he should, instead, hold in high esteem. 0is
conduct desere nothing less than a seere disciplinary sanction.
Atty. $omoso was suspended from the practice of law for a period of si' months for being
guilty of misconduct and warned that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most
seerely.
$antes vs. $antes +38 SC%A *82
FACTS: Emma Gantes filed a disbarment complaint against her husband Atty. Crispin Gantes
on the grounds of abandonment and carrying illicit relationships with two women, one after
the other.
SSU!: !hether or not the acts of Atty. Crispin Gantes indications that he lost good moral
character while in the continuance of the legal profession and a ground for his disbarment.
"!#$: It should be noted that the re1uirement of good moral character has three ostensible
purposes, namely to protect the public: to protect the public image of lawyers: to protect
prospectie clients: and, to protect errant lawyers from themseles.
Lawyers are e'pected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar
but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this e'clusie
and honored fraternity. -hey may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any
misconduct, een if it pertains to his priate actiities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
Undoubtedly, respondents 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 appropriate sanctions.
0ence, Atty. Crispin Gantes was disbarred and his name was ordered to be stric/en from the
roll of attorneys.
%oyon5 vs. 84&ena / SC%A 8/1
FACTS: Dn the disbarment complaint filed by Josefina Royong against Ariston Dblena for
committing rape, where rape was not proen as it was consensual se', another ground for
disbarment against the respondent sprouted discoering that the latter was liing adulterously
with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations Josefina Royong.
Respondent argued that he should not be disbarred notwithstanding his illicit relations with the
complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles because he has not been
conicted of any crime inoling moral turpitude.
SSU!: !hether or not the illicit relation of Dblena with Josefina Royong and the adulterous
cohabitation of respondent with Briccia Angeles are grounds for disbarment although
respondent has not been conicted of any crime inoling moral turpitude.
"!#$: <es. An applicant for license to practice law is re1uired to show good moral
character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion
generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where
he is /nown. As has been said, the standard of personal and professional integrity which
should be applied to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as
merely enables them to escape the penalties of criminal law. 5ood moral character includes at
least common honesty.
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for
admission to the bar. 0e lied an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people
who /new him seemed to hae ac1uiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good
moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discoered then or now as he is
clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.
-he respondents name was ordered to be stric/en from the roll of attorneys.
A6vincu&a vs. 'aca4ata *1/ SC%A 309
FACTS: Adincula filed a disbarment case against Atty. Cacabata on ground of gross
immorality for /issing her twice, once on the chee/ before she stepped out of his car, and once
on the lips while in the car.
SSU!: !hether or not respondent committed gross immorality that would warrant his
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
"!#$: Immorality has not been confined to se'ual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent
with rectitude, or indicatie of corruption, indecency, depraity and dissoluteness: or is
willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public
welfare.
5uided by the definitions aboe, the Court perceied acts of /issing or beso9beso on the
chee/s as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and
customary. -he acts of respondent, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him
and /issing her on the lips are distasteful. 0oweer, such act, een if considered offensie and
undesirable, cannot be considered grossly immoral.
Respondent was only reprimanded and sternly warned that a more seere sanction will be
imposed on him for any repetition of the same offense.
:a(as vs. :a(as *29 SC%A 893
FACTS: -he $upreme Court suspended Justo .aras from the practice of law on the
disbarment complaint filed by his wife, Rosa .aras, on grounds of falsification of documents,
immorality and abandonment of his family. Rosa then filed a petition for nullity of their
marriage on grounds of psychological incapacity contending that the factual findings on the
disbarment case are conclusie on the present case.
SSU!: !hether or not the factual finding of the Court in disbarment case conclusie to a
case of nullity of marriage.
"!#$: "o. Dnes unfitness as a lawyer does not automatically mean ones unfitness as a
husband or ice ersa. -he yardstic/s for such roles are simply different. -his is why the
disposition in a disbarment case cannot be conclusie on an action for declaration of nullity of
marriage. !hile Rosas charges sufficiently proed Justos unfitness as a lawyer, howeer,
they may not establish that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform his duties as a
husband. In the disbarment case, 8the real 1uestion for determination is whether or not the
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the priileges as such.8 Its purpose is 8to protect the
court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court.8 Dn the other hand, in an
action for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity,
the 1uestion for determination is whether the guilty party suffers a grae, incurable, and pre9
e'isting mental incapacity that renders him truly incognitie of the basic marital coenants. Its
purpose is to free the innocent party from a meaningless marriage. In this case, as will be seen
in the following discussion, Justos acts are not sufficient to conclude that he is
psychologically incapacitated, albeit such acts really fall short of what is e'pected from a
lawyer.
Cos1os Foun6(y S)o2 ;o(<e(s Union vs. #o Bu
FACTS: Cosmos ?oundry $hop was burned and as a result, Cosmos ?oundry $hop !or/ers
Union filed a labor dispute to obtain what was due it. -o aoid liability, the owner of the shop
sold all his businesses to Lobu. -he Union receied a faorable decision but uncountable
filing of petitions and motions were done by Lobu, with the help of his counsel Busmente, for
the purpose of frustrating the e'ecution of the #udgment.
SSU!: !hether or not Atty. Busmente performed his obligation as an officer of the court
while sustaining the dignity of the profession while acting as counsel for Lo Bu.
"!#$: 0e was of course e'pected to defend his clientIs cause with 2eal, but not at the
disregard of the truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor statutes. 0e ought to
remember that his obligation as an officer of the court, no less than the dignity of the
profession, re1uires that he should not act li/e an errand9boy at the bec/ and call of his client,
ready and eager to do his eery bidding. If he fails to /eep that admonition in mind, then he
puts into serious 1uestion his good standing in the bar.
n %e: 1989 B: !&ections 1/8 SC%A 398
FACT: Reports were receied regarding intensie electioneering and oerspending by the
candidates of the %*H* IB. Elections. Another allegation was the officious interention of
certain public officials to influence the oting. -he $upreme Court suspended the oath9ta/ing
of the IB. officers9elect and in1uired into the eracity of the reports.
-he successie inestigation conducted by the fact9finding Committee has reealed that those
parties hae conspired among themseles to conceal the irregularities committed during the
campaign.
SSU!: !hether or not the acts of the IB. members during the election proceeding were done
in iolation of the IB. By9Laws.
"!#$: After all the facts and acts, by some of the members of the IB., were considered, the
$upreme Court declared that the candidates and many of the participants in that election not
only iolated the By9Laws of the IB. but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes
on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the
laws, the duty to 8promote respect for law and legal processes8 and to abstain from actiities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system8. Respect for law is
graely eroded when lawyers themseles, who are supposed to be minions of the law, engage
in unlawful practices and caalierly brush aside the ery rules that the IB. formulated for their
obserance.
-he I.B elections in %*H* was annulled.
Casta-e6a vs. A5o 3* SC%A *12
FACTS: Casta6eda and 0enson filed a petition for replein against Ago, in which petitioners
receied a faorable decision. Ago, #oined by his wife, abetted by their lawyer Jose C. Luison,
hae misused legal remedies and prostituted the #udicial process to thwart the satisfaction of
the #udgment, to the e'tended pre#udice of the petitioners. -he respondents, with the assistance
of counsel, maneuered for fourteen years to persistently resist e'ecution of the #udgment thru
manifold tactics in and from one court to another. -his case has gone 4 times to the $upreme
Court.
SSU!: !hether or not respondents counsel guilty of instigating controersy.
"!#$: -he Court condemned the act of the respondents and their counsel in trying to use the
court to subert the ery ends of #ustice. Atty. Luison forgot his sacred mission as a sworn
public serant and allowed himself to become an instigator of controersy and a predator of
conflict instead of a true e'ponent of the primacy of truth and moral #ustice. A lawyers
insistence despite the patent futility of his clientIs position cannot be countenanced. It is the
duty of a counsel to adise his client on the merit or lac/ of merit of his case. If he finds that
his clientIs cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to adise the latter to ac1uiesce and
submit. A lawyerIs oath to uphold the cause of #ustice is superior to his duty to his client: its
primacy is indisputable.
Sa1a( 'inin5 Co., nc. vs. A(na6o 2+ SC%A +02
FACTS: Arnado, a regional administrator of the Gepartment of Labor, appointed a labor
lawyer to render a decision on a claim for compensation of Abuyen against $amar Cining Co.,
Inc., in which the decision faored Abuyen. $amar Cinings lawyer, Atty. Arcinas filed a
petition contending that the assigned labor lawyer has no #urisdiction oer the case. After the
said petition was dismissed, the decision on the case of Calte' s. Nillanuea was rendered
ruling that =appointed hearing officers by regional administrators of the labor department may
issue awards>. "eertheless, Arcinas still appealed the dismissed petition before the $upreme
Court.
SSU!: !hether or not Arcinas appeal may be gien merit.
"!#$: "o. It is obious that the purpose of the appeal is #ust to delay and prolong the
litigation in the hope of =draining the resources of the poorer party> =and of compelling it to
submit out of sheer e'haustion.> -hus, the conduct of petitioners counsel is hardly compatible
with the duty of the Bar to assist in the administration of #ustice, not to obstruct or defeat the
same.
-he $upreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal and ordered $amar Cining and Atty.
Arcinas to shoulder the litigation costs of this case. A certified copy of the decision was
ordered to be attached to the personal record of Atty.Arcinas, as a Cember of the Bar.
=6a. $e Baca&in5 vs. #a5una *+ SC%A 2+3
FACTS: Laguda filed an e#ectment case against Nda. Ge Bacaling in her capacity as #udicial
administratri' of the estate of her late husband, Gr. Bacaling. -he initial complaint ended in an
amicable settlement approed by the City Court. 0oweer, herein petitioner failed to satisfy
the conditions of the settlement and filed arious court suits, such as this present other
petition, which prolong the litigation process.
SSU!: !hether or not petitioners counsel deseres condemnation for deliberately causing
undue delay on the case.
"!#$: -he petition smac/s of a dilatory tactic and a friolous attempt resorted to by
petitioner to frustrate the prompt termination of the e#ectment case and to prolong litigation
unnecessarily. $uch conduct on the part of petitioner and her counsel deseres the igorous
condemnation of this Court, because it einces a flagrant misuse of the remedy of certiorari
which would only be resorted to in case of lac/ of #urisdiction or grae abuse of discretion by
an inferior court. Recourse of this /ind unduly ta'es the energy and patience of courts and
simply wastes the precious time that they could well deote to really meritorious cases.
%o>as vs. Cou(t of A22ea&s 1*3 SC%A 2*3
FACTS: -hree motions for e'tension to file appellants brief were filed and before the last
motion was resoled, after the second e'tension had e'pired, appellants brief was submitted,
thus, it was was declared to hae been filed out of time on CAs resolution. .etition was filed
to assail the resolution.
SSU!: !hether the dismissal of the appeal should be blamed to the error of the CA or to the
petitioner and their counsel.
"!#$: Let this sere as warning among members of the .hilippine bar who ta/e their own
sweet time with their cases if not purposely delay its progress for no cogent reason. It does no
credit to their standing in the profession. Core so when they do not file the re1uired brief or
pleading until their motion is acted upon. "ot only should they not presume that their motion
for e'tension of time will be granted by the court much less should they e'pect that the
e'tension that may be granted shall be counted from notice. -hey should file their briefs or
pleadings within the e'tended period re1uested. ?ailing in this, they hae only themseles to
blame if their appeal or case is dismissed.
$i(ecto( of %e&i5ious Affai(s vs. Bayot /+ :)i& */9
FACTS: Respondent was charged with malpractice for adertising his legal serices on a
newspaper stating that he gies assistance on securing marriage license which maybe without
delay or publicity if desired: and, that he arrange marriages to wishes of the parties: that
consultation is free for the poor: and, eerything is confidential.
SSU!: !hether or not Bayot is guilty of malpractice.
"!#$: -he adertisement is undeniably in iolation of legal ethics. It is highly unethical for
an attorney to adertise his talents or s/ill as a merchant adertises his wares. Law is a
profession and not a trade. -he lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and
adopts the practices of mercantilism by adertising his serices or offering them to the public.
-he most worthy and effectie adertisement possible is the establishment of a well9merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
n %e: Ta5o(6a *3 :)i& +2 an6 *3 :)i& 3/
FACTS: -agorda admitted that preious to the last general elections, he made use of cards
containing details of his legal serices. 0e also admitted writing a letter to the barrio lieutenant
of his home municipality seeming to solicit cases.
SSU!: !hether or not such act of soliciting cases should be condemned by the court.
"!#$: 8-he practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or bro/ers, constitutes malpractice.8
It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases
by lawyers. It is destructie of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It wor/s against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members
of the bar.
-he solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. But
with the mitigating circumstances of admitting his acts and being young in the profession,
respondent was #ust suspended from the practice of law for one month.
:eo2&e vs. 'cCa4&e 18 Co&o 183
FACTS: Respondent adertised his legal serices in a newspaper as followsF =If you li/e a
diorce, communicate with me, and your desire will be gratified. "o one will /now it. <ou see
I adertise anonymously. I did not een sub#ect myself to criticism. Eerything will be done
ery 1uietly and you will be able to secure the dissolution of the disagreeable marriage tie
without public scandal and hence without reproach.>
SSU!: !hether or not such adertisement of legal serice is proper.
"!#$: -his adertisement is highly reprehensible. It is well calculated to encourage people
to ma/e application for diorces who might otherwise hae refrained from so doing. It is
against good morals public or priate. It is a false representation and a libel upon the court of
#ustice.
U&e2 vs. T)e #e5a& C&inic, nc., Ba( 'atte( No.**3, 3?1/?93
FACTS: Ulep filed a petition praying that respondent corporation be ordered to cease and
desist from publishing its adertisement pertaining to legal serices since the same were
unethical and destructie of the confidence of the community in the integrity of lawyers.
Respondent claims that based on U.$. decided cases, publication of such adertisement is
allowed since they are not engaged in the practice of law and are #ust merely rendering legal
support through paralegal. 0oweer, the ma#or stoc/holder of the corporation is a member of
the .hilippine Bar.
SSU!: !hether or not Respondent Corporation can be a proper sub#ect on the adertisement
complaint.
"!#$: -he $upreme Court en#oined the said corporation from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of the assailed adertisement for they are contrary to the Code of
.rofessional Responsibility.
-he ma#or stoc/holder of the corporation, being a member of the .hilippine Bar, was
reprimanded and sternly warned not to repeat similar act.
Antonio vs. Cou(t of A22ea&s 1*3 SC%A *92
FACTS: .etitioners motion for reconsideration for their appeal in the annulment case was
denied by the CA for being filed out of the reglementary period. .etitioners contend that their
counsel of record, Atty. ?unelas of ?unelas, .ere2 and Associates, abandoned them without
informing them of the decision of the CA. -hey further argue that the law office only
composed of Atty. ?unelas and that the same was dissoled during the pendency of the appeal.
SSU!: !hether or not the contention of the petitioners is tenable.
"!#$: "o. It is safe to presume that a law firm which registered and represented itself as
such, with at least two named partners, is composed of at least two lawyers. And if it is true
that this law office was earlier dissoled, the winding up process is presumed to hae been
performed in a regular manner, with all the obligations properly accounted for. Nery concrete
eidence must be presented in order that these presumptions may be rebutted.
8uano A((ast(e Se(vice, nc. vs. A&eona( 202 SC%A 319
FACTS: .etitionerIs counsel was the firm of Ledesma, $aludo and Associates, not any
particular member of such, which has a main office in Ca/ati and a branch office in Cebu
City. Both the main and branch offices operate under one and the same name Ledesma, $aludo
and Associates.
-he petitioners ciil case handled by Atty. Canalo of L$A Ca/ati was decided unfaorably
of them. -heir appeal was dismissed due to being filed out of time. .etitioners lead counsel
Atty. Catipay of L$A Cebu argues that the appeal was filed out of time as there was no proper
serice of decision for it was mista/enly sent to L$A Ca/ati.
SSU!: !hether or not a alid serice of decision was furnished upon the petitioners counsel
of record.
"!#$: <es. 0aing represented itself to the public as comprising a single firm, L$A should
not be allowed at this point to pretend that its main office and its branch office in effect
constitute separate law firms with separate and distinct personalities and responsibilities.
.etitioner does not een deny that Atty. Canalo, a partner in L$A based in its Ca/ati main
office, receied the copy of the decision. $uch a receipt binds the L$A law partnership.
B.%. Se4astian !nte(2(ises nc. vs. Cou(t of A22ea&s 203 SC%A 28
FACTS: .etitioners counsel of record, Bai2as, Alberto and Associates, receied notice to file
Appellants Brief. Counsel for petitioner failed to file the Brief, thus, CA dismissed the appeal.
.etitioner thru his counsel of record, Bai2as, Alberto and Associates, filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging that as a result of the death of Atty. Bai2a, a senior partner in the law
firm, the firms affairs are still being settled between the lawyer son of the deceased partner
and Atty. Alberto, since the latter already established her own law office. ?urthermore, the
lawyer who handled the case had also left the firm.
SSU!: !hether or not the death of a partner e'tinguishes the lawyer9client relationship with
the law firm.
"!#$: .etitionerIs counsel was the law firm and not merely Atty. Bai2as. 0ence, the death of
the latter did not e'tinguish the lawyer9client relationship between said firm and petitioner.
!ith Bai2asI death, the responsibility of Atty. Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner as
counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance. -his is so because it was
the law firm which handled the case for petitioner. Dther associates in the firm could hae
replaced the assigned counsel upon receipt of the notice to file Brief, or, it could hae
withdrawn as counsel in the case.
$e %oy vs. Cou(t of A22ea&s 1*/ SC%A /*/
FACTS: A ciil case was filed against petitioner and decision was rendered unfaorably of
them. .etitioner appealed to CA but was denied. Guring the period of filing a motion for
reconsideration, petitioner filed a motion for e'tension of time to file motion for
reconsideration but was also denied by the CA applying the rule laid down in 0abaluyas
Enterprises, Inc. . Jap2on, to wit, the period for appealing or filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be e'tended.
.etitioner contends that the doctrine of the mentioned case should not be applied for not being
published in the Dfficial 5a2ette.
SSU!: !hether or not a publication of the $upreme Courts decision in the Dfficial 5a2ette
is re1uired so as to ma/e it effectie and /nown.
"!#$: "o. -here is no law re1uiring the publication of $upreme Court decision in the
Dfficial 5a2ette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effectie. It is
bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in actie law practice to /eep abreast of decisions of the
$upreme Court particularly where issues hae been clarified, consistently reiterated and
published in the adance reports of $upreme Court decisions and in such publications as the
$CRA and law #ournals.
=it(io&o vs. Atty. $asi5 +00 SC%A 1/2
FACTS: A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Gasig for ma/ing unlawful demands
or attempting to e'tort money in e'change for a faorable decision on applications or re1uest
pending before her office.
SSU!: !hether or not respondent attorney9at9law, as Dfficer9in9Charge ADICB of Legal
$erices, C0EG, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance, considering that her
position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was =Chief Education .rogram $pecialist,
$tandards Geelopment Giision, Dffice of .rograms and $tandards, C0EG.>
"!#$: -he Code of .rofessional Responsibility was not meant to goern the conduct of
priate practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in goernment serice. Lawyers
in goernment are public serants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public serice. -hus,
they should be more sensitie in the performance of their professional obligations, as their
conduct is sub#ect to the eer9constant scrutiny of the public. A lawyer in goernment serice
is a /eeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility,
perhaps higher than her brethren in priate practice.
U.S. vs. Ba((e6o 32 :)i& ++9
FACTS: -he proincial fiscal assigned in the rape case against respondents declined to file
information and proceed with the trial for reasons that he was not coninced with the eidence
that the accused committed the alleged crime.
SSU!: !hether or not the proincial fiscal may dismiss a complaint.
"!#$: "o. A conscientious prosecuting official, whose inestigations hae satisfied him as
to the innocence of the accused, should not institute criminal proceedings against such
persons. But in the eent that criminal proceedings hae been instituted, and the inestigations
of the proincial fiscal hae satisfied him that the accused is innocent, or that eidence is
insufficient to secure coniction, it then becomes his duty to adise the court as to the result of
his inestigations, and to moe the court to dismiss the proceedings, leaing it to the court to
dismiss the case. In this #urisdiction, proincial fiscals hae no power to dismiss criminal
actions actually instituted, and pending proceedings. -he power to dismiss is ested solely in
the courts, that is to say in the presiding #udge thereof.
T(ieste, S(. vs. San6i5an4ayan 1+* SC%A *08
FACTS: .etitioner was conicted by the $andiganbayan for iolation of Anti95raft and
Corruption .ractices Act. A petition for reiew was filed before the $upreme Court, and while
the case was being heard, the $olicitor 5eneral submitted a consolidated comment
recommending the ac1uittal of the accused.
SSU!: !hether or not a public prosecutor, in this case the $olicitor 5eneral, may
recommend the ac1uittal of the accused, whose coniction is on appeal, if he found no legal
basis to sustain the coniction.
"!#$: <es. $ince petition was grounded on the same factual issues raised during the trial in
$andiganbayan, the facts are, therefore, non9reiewable. In this case, the comment of the
$olicitor 5eneral based on his inestigation on the eidences in his possession was accepted
by the $upreme Court and weighed much on rendering the decision. It is therefore concluded
that public prosecutor has the authority to ma/e recommendations as to the ac1uittal of the
accused if he found no legal basis to sustain the accuseds coniction.
!n(i@ue9, S(. vs. "on. ,i1ene9 10/ :)i& 933
FACTS: -he proincial fiscal refused to appear for his Cunicipality in a ciil case on the
grounds that he is of the opinion that the assailed Republic Act was alid and constitutional.
SSU!: !hether or not a goernment lawyer may refuse to perform a duty on the basis of his
opinion or priate interest.
"!#$: "o. -he opinion of the proincial fiscal, which point out priate interest, cannot
#ustify his refusal to represent his Cunicipality as it is not on any conditions enumerated by
law, thus, do not constitute a legal and alid e'cuse for inhibition or dis1ualification. Unli/e
practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal cannot refuse the
performance of his functions not proided by law, for he will be iolating his oath of office if
he does, as he swore, among others, =that he will well and faithfully discharge to the best of
his ability the duties of the office or position upon which he is about to enter.>
n %e: %a1on ,a&an5
FACTS: Ramon 5alang too/ the bar e'aminations seen times. 0e eentually passed the bar
and too/ the oath, but was later found to hae not declare, in all his application to ta/e the bar
e'am, his pending criminal cases.
SSU!: !hether or not fraudulently concealment of pending criminal cases a ground for
reocation of license to practice law.
"!#$: Eery applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his inolement in any
criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or
determine applicantIs moral character. ?urthermore, as to what crime inoles moral turpitude,
is for the $upreme Court to determine. 0ence, the necessity of laying before or informing the
Court of oneIs personal record M whether he was criminally indicted, ac1uitted, conicted or
the case dismissed or is still pending M becomes more compelling.
-hat the concealment of an attorney in his application to ta/e the Bar e'aminations of the fact
that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for reocation of
his license to practice law is well M settled.
$iao vs. 'a(tine9
FACTS: Giao too/ the law e'aminations and was admitted to the Bar. Cartine2 charged him
of falsifying the information in his application for such Bar E'am since Giao did not finish his
high school training, and neither did he obtain his Associate in Arts degree. Giao claims that
he obtained his AA from Arellano Uniersity in %*+*. Records hae shown that Giao
graduated from the Uniersity in April %*+*, but he started Law studies in Dctober %*+H.
SSU!: !hether or not Giao should be disbarred due to misrepresentation.
"!#$: It is proided in the Rules for applicants under oath that =.reious to the study of law,
he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the re1uired pre9legal education as re1uired
by the Gepartment of .riate Education.> Giao was not 1ualified to ta/e the Bar E'ams, but
did by falsifying information. Admission under false pretenses thus gie grounds for reo/ing
his admission in the Bar, as passing the Bar E'am is not the only re1uirement to become an
attorney at law.
=i&&asanta vs. :e(a&ta
FACTS: .eralta is a successful bar candidate married to Ri2alina Nalde2. 0e courted
Nillasanta who fell in loe with him. -o hae carnal /nowledge of her, the respondent
procured the preparation of a fa/e marriage contract. Complainant sought to dis1ualify
respondent from the bar due to immorality.
SSU!: !hether or not .eralta committed immorality which is a ground for dis1ualification
from the bar.
"!#$: Upon consideration of the records, the Court is of the opinion that respondent is
immoral. -he act of respondent in contracting the second marriage, een his act of ma/ing
loe with another woman while his first wife is still alie and their marriage still alid and
e'isting, is contrary to honesty, #ustice, decency, and morality. -hus, lac/ing the good moral
character re1uired by the Rules of Court, the respondent was declared dis1ualified from being
admitted to the bar.
Fe(nan6e9 vs. "on. Be&&o
FACTS: -he #udge made insulting remar/s on his order characteri2ing the counsel as
=anomalous and unbecoming> and that petitioner obtained fees =through maneuers of
documents from guardian9petitioner.> In turn, Atty. ?ernande2 used strong words against 0on.
Bello which made the latter file a petition to remoe the words used by Atty. ?ernande2 on the
records.
SSU!: !hether or not the words used by Atty. ?ernande2 be considered in iolation of Rule
H.)%, thus, should be e'punged from the records.
"!#$: -he court ruled in a negatie. -he use of strong language by Atty. ?ernande2 was
#ustified haing been impelled by the same language used by the #udge. 0ence, it was not be
remoed from the records.
Atty. $a&&on5. ,a&icinao vs. Atty. Cast(o
FACTS: Atty. Gallong95alicinao is the Cler/ of Court of R-C and Atty. Castro was a priate
practitioner. Atty. Castro went to the office of the complainant to in1uire whether the records
of a Ciil Case had already been remanded to the CC-C. Respondent was not the counsel of
either party in the case being in1uired about.
SSU!: !hether or not the act of Atty. Castro is proper.
"!#$: Respondent was not the counsel of record of the Ciil Case he in1uired about. 0is
e'planation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records are already
transmitted to the CC-C is unacceptable. "ot being the counsel of record, he had no right to
impose his will on the cler/ of court. 0e iolated Rule H.)&, because this was an act of
encroachment. It matters not that he did so in good faith.
#a2ut vs. %e1oti5ue
FACTS: Atty. Laput charged Atty. Remotigue and Atty. .atalinghug with unprofessional and
unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother lawyer. -he widow of his
deceased client did not countersign the pleadings he prepared. 0e found out that Atty.
.atalinghug filed a written appearance on January %%, %*44 as the new counsel for his client.
Dn ?ebruary 4, %*44, petitioner withdraw as a counsel for the said client. According to Atty.
.atalinghug, the client already lost confidence on Atty. Laput, and thus, filed a pleading
discharging the latters serices. Dn the other hand, Atty. Remotigue filed his appearance on
?ebruary (, %*44.
SSU!: !hether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty .atalinghug are guilty of unprofessional
and unethical conduct in soliciting cases.
"!#$: -he $C found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. .atalinghug since his
professional serices were contracted by the widow. Besides, the petitionerIs oluntary
withdrawal amounted to consent Atty. .atalinghugs appearance as a counsel of the widow.
-he $C also found Atty. Remotigue not guilty as he entered his appearance only after the
client dispensed petitionerIs professional serices, and after petitioner had oluntarily
withdrawn his appearance.
#i<on5 vs. #i1
FACTS: Li/ong filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lim due to malpractice and grae
misconduct.
Li/ong obtained a loan from a certain <ap. Li/ong and <ap filed a #oint motion to allow the
latter to withdraw the petitioners pension chec/s, in which Li/ong was not represented by her
counsel. Li/ong as/ed for a copy of the agreement but she was not furnished a copy of the
same. -hus, petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment alleging that she was preented from
see/ing assistance of any of her two lawyers. $he was een adised by Atty.Lim that it was
not necessary for her to consult her lawyers since respondent was assisting her anyway and
that respondent already too/ care of eerything. Complainant also alleged that respondent
fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent complainant and connied in her
defeat.
SSU!: !hether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct.
"!#$: -he $upreme Court held that the respondent was guilty of misconduct. Under the
Code of .rofessional Responsibility, a lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the
sub#ect of controersy with a party represented by counsel: much less should he underta/e to
negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to aoid eerything that may tend to mislead a
party not represented by counsel and he should not underta/e to adise him as to the law. $uch
acts of the respondent constituting malpractice and grae misconduct cannot be left
unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they
li/ewise preent #ustice from being attained. Respondent was suspended from the practice of
law for % year.
U.S. vs. Ney A Bos@ue
FACTS: "ey was an American lawyer authori2ed to practice law in the .hilippines. 0e is in
partner with a $paniard lawyer Bos1ue who was denied by the court of his admission to the
practice of law in the .hilippines on account of alienage. 8"ey and Bos1ue8 signed a circular
stating that they had established an office for the general practice of law in all courts of the
Islands and that Bos1ue would deote himself especially to consultation and office wor/
relating to $panish Law.
SSU!: !hether or not both lawyers act constitutes contempt of court.
"!#$: Both were conicted as charged upon different grounds. As regards to Bos1ue, it was
held that the conduct of the respondent Bos1ue amounts to disobedience of an order made in a
proceeding to which he was a party.8 As regards "ey, he was found guilty of 8misbehaior8
committed by 8an officer of the court8 for performing legal duties in collaboration with a
person unauthori2ed to practice law.
Be&t(an J(. vs. A4a6
FACTS: Abad was a successful bar e'aminee whose ta/ing oath was suspended due to a
complaint filed against him. 0e has not been admitted to the bar for not haing ta/en the oath
yet, but he practiced law anyway. 0e was charged by the president of the .hilippine -rial
Lawyers Association, Inc., Atty. Beltran, for unauthori2ed practice of law.
0e contended that he had paid the Bar Admission ?ee, Certification ?ee, membership dues
and professional ta': and, that he was notified of the oath9ta/ing, was made to sign the oath,
was inited for the Annual 5eneral Ceeting, his name was not stric/en off the roll of
attorneys, and that he has a Certificate of Cembership in 5ood $tanding.
SSU!: !hether or not Abad is guilty of contempt of court for unauthori2ed practice of law.
"!#$: -he $upreme Court held that Abad should /now that the circumstances which he has
narrated do not constitute his admission to the .hilippine Bar and the right to practice law
thereafter. 0e should /now that two essential re1uisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namelyF his lawyerIs oath and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent was sentenced fine and imprisonment for twenty fie days.