Case No. 79 Hadjula vs..

Madianda
Relevant Facts:
Complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Madianda for allegedly violating article 209
of the RPC and Rule 15.02 and 21.02 of the CPR. Respondent was the Chief Legal
Officer while the complainant is the chief nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing
services. Complainant alleged, that she approached the Atty. Madianda for some legal
advice, that in the course of their conversation which was supposed to be kept
confidential, she disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage
contract, a birth certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the
respondent that she would refer the matter to a lawyer friend. Complainant states that it
was malicious of respondent to have refused handling her case only after she had
already heard her secrets. Complainant averred that her friendship with respondent
soured after her filing a criminal and disciplinary action against the latter, because
respondent demanded a cellular phone in exchange for the complainants promotion.
According to the complainant, the respondent, by way of retaliation filed a counter
complaint in the ombudsman charging the complainant with falsification of public
documents and immorality, charges based on the disclosures complainant made to the
respondent, using the same basis, a disciplinary case was also instituted against her
before the PRC.
Respondents answer:
Denied giving advice to the complainant and dismissed any suggestion about the
existence of a lawyer-client relationship. Stated the observation that the supposed
confidential data and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common
knowledge in the BFP. Respondent denied delivery of any legal document and
disclosure of confidential information or secrets. Respondent avers that whenever there
are personal matters referred to her, she just referred them to private law practitioners
and never entertain the same, NOR listen to their stories or examine or accept any
document. Further the respondent states that the truth of the matter is that the
complainants illicit relationship and her illegal and unlawful activities are known in the
BFP since she also filed child support case against her lover, that the filing of the instant
case was done to force Atty. Madianda to settle and withdraw the cases filed against
her.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline:
Stated that the information related by complainant to the respondent is protected under
the A-C privilege communication. Prescinding from this postulate, the investigating

commissioner found the respondent to have violated legal ethics when she revealed
information given to her during a legal consultation, and accordingly recommended that
the respondent be reprimanded.

Issue:
WON the respondent violated the rule on attorney-client privilege communication.
SC Held:
YES. The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal
advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship
imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the
profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or
revealed during legal consultations. The fact that no formal professional engagement
follows the consultation is of little moment. Nor will it make any difference that no
contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship.
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant
asked respondent for legal advice regarding the formers business. It is not essential
that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion.
Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client
privilege communication, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought
(2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,
(3) the communications relating to that purpose,
(4) made in confidence
(5) by the client,
(6) are at his instance permanently protected
(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor; and

(8) except the protection be waived.

The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer. Respondent atty. is
hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED.

Case No. 80 William Ong Genato vs. Atty. Essex L. Silapan

Relevant Facts:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by petitioner against respondent. Their legal
relationship started when respondent asked if he could rent a small office space in
complainants building to which complainant acceded. He was introduced by
complainant to Atty. Dacanay, complainants retained counsel and was allowed to
handle some of his cases. The conflict started when respondent borrowed P200,000
from complainant as downpayment for the purchase of a new car. In return, respondent
issued a postdated check in the amount of 176,528. Respondent also mortgaged to
complainant his house and lot. Respondent was able to buy the car but the document of
sale was issued in complainants name financed through City Trust Company.
Respondent introduced a certain Emmanuel Romero to complainant wherein Romero
borrowed from complainant a sum of money. Respondent allegedly earned commission
in the amount of P52, 289.90. This was used by complainant to pay respondents
arrears with the car financing firm. Respondent failed to pay the amortization and so the
financing firm sent a demand letter to complainant. Complainant encashed the check
given to him but was dishonoured. Despite repeated demands for payment, respondent
did not pay. Hence, complainant filed a criminal case against respondent for violation of
BP 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Arguments:
Complainant:
Aside from his allegations already mentioned in the relevant facts, he accused
respondent guilty of breaking their confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be
held administratively liable. Hence, he filed this disbarment case.
Respondent:

According to him, complainant is a businessman engaged in trading and buy and sell of
deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady deals and has many cases
pending in court. That before paying the next instalment on his car, he asked
complainant to transfer the ownership to him by executing a deed of sale but
complainant said he will only do so after the termination of his criminal case where he
wants respondent to bribe money to the members of the review committee of DOJ, to
the prosecutor, and the judge for his acquittal. Moreover he argued that it was
complainant who offered him an office space in his building. He averred that he is not
guilty of breaking his confidential lawyer-client relationship with complainant as he made
the disclosure in defense of his honor and reputation.
He also asserted that he executed the real estate mortgage without consideration and
only as a formal requirement so he could obtain the loan. He issued the postdated
check only to serve some kind of acknowledgment that he received a portion of his
attorneys fees and as a form of assurance that he will not abandon the cases he was
handling for complainant. He denied receiving a commission from
Romeros loan. That such amount was paid to him as attorneys fees for services he
rendered for Romeo and that he used this to pay his arrears on his car. But because
complainant refused to transfer ownership of the car, he stopped paying.
Issue: WON respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to
complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainants alleged intention to bribe
government officials in connection with a pending case.
SC Ruling:
Canon 17 of the CPR provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. It has been established that
an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional
character unless the client consents. However, the privilege against disclosure of
confidential communications is limited only to communications which are legitimately
and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. If the unlawful
purpose is avowed, the complainants intention to bribe is not covered by the privilege.
Be that as it may, respondents explanation that it was necessary for him to make
disclosures is untenable. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as
they were not pertinent to the foreclosure of the mortgage case. He is therefore
suspended for six months.

Case No. 81 Mercado vs. Atty. Vitriolo

Relevant Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent alleging that respondent
maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public document against her, a
former client, based on confidential information gained from their attorney-client
relationship. Complainant is Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards
Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards while respondent is a Deputy
Executive Director IV of CHED. Complainants husband filed annulment case against
her. When complainants counsel died, respondent substituted him as counsel.
Complainant learned that respondent filed a criminal case against her for falsification of
public documents. Complainant allegedly indicated in said certificates of live birth that
she is married to Ferdinand Fernandez when she is legally married to Ruben Mercado.
Summary of Arguments:
Complainant:
Complainant insisted that she got married only once and that is with Ruben Mercado.
She also said that other charges against respondent are pending before or decided
upon by other tribunals. Moreover, she alleged that the criminal complaint for

falsification of a public document disclosed confidential facts and information relating to

the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent as her counsel. She, therefore,
accused respondent of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client
relationship.
Respondent:
Respondent argued that the complaint for disbarment was all hearsay, misleading and
irrelevant because all the allegations levelled against him are subject of separate factbinding bodies. He claimed that pending cases against him are not grounds for
disbarment. He maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint against complainant
does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client
because the bases of the falsification cases are in no way connected with the
confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel.
Issue: WON respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney
and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his
former client.
SC Ruling:
The ff: are essential factors to establish the existence of the privilege:
a. There exists an attorney-client relationship
b. The client made the communication in confidence
c. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity
The evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. Complainant did
not specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. Because
complainant failed to attend the hearings at the IBP, it is difficult to determine if there
was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Hence, the petition is
dismissed for lack of merit.

Case 82. Montano vs IBP

Complainants Arguments:

* Complainant Felicisimo M. Montano charged Atty. Juan Dealca with misconduct.

* Complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration
with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals
* Agreed upon P15,000.00 attorney's fees, fifty percent (50%) payable upon acceptance
of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case.
* Complainant paid respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing 50% of the
attorney's fees
* Even before respondent counsel had prepared the appellant's brief, Atty. Dealca
demanded an additional payment from complainant. Complainant obliged by paying the
amount of P4,000.00.
* Prior to the filing of the appellant's brief, respondent counsel again demanded
payment of the remaining balance of P3,500.00
* When complainant was unable to do so, respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance
as complainant's counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity.
* Complainant claimed that such conduct by respondent counsel exceeded the ethical
standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with
administratively.
* Complainant later on filed motions praying for the imposition of the maximum penalty
of disbarment.
* IBP Investigating Commissioner: guilty of unprofessional conduct- SEVERELY
REPRIMANDED.
* IBP Board of Governors: Three (3) months suspension from practice of law.
Respondent counsel sought reconsideration for IBPs resolution.
Respondents arguments:
* Atty. Ronando L. Gerona is the one representing complainant in his case on appeal;
* Due to the ailment of Atty. Gerona's daughter, he could not
prepare and submit complainant's appellant's brief on time

* Complainant asked respondent to prepare and submit his appellant's brief on time at
the agreed fee of P15,000.00, 50% down and 50% upon its completion
* Respondent was able to finish the appellant's brief ahead of its deadline, so he
advised the complainant about its completion with the request that the remaining
balance of P7,500.00 be paid. Complainant paid P4,000.00 only, promising to pay the
P3,500.00 "tomorrow" or on "later particular date." Please take note that, at this
juncture, there was already a breach of the agreement on complainant's part.
* A promise-non-payment cycle went on repeatedly until the last day of the filing of the
brief.
* Even without being paid completely, respondent, of his own free will and accord, filed
complainant's brief on time
* P3,500.00 remains unpaid until now
* respondent sent the February 28, 1993 note and case folder to the complainant,
hoping that the latter would see personally the former about it to settle the matter
between them
* However, instead of seeing the respondent, complainant filed this case;
* Respondent was constrained to file his withdrawal with the Court of Appeals because
of this case to avoid further misunderstanding since he was the one who signed the
appellant's brief although Atty. Gerona was his counsel of record. Such withdrawal was
accordingly granted by the appellate court
* Complainant's refusal to pay the agreed lawyer's fees, was deliberate and in bad faith;
hence, his withdrawal as counsel was "just, ethical and proper."
* IBP DENIED Dealcas Motion for Reconsideration.
* Dealca filed pleading to Supreme Court, praying for the case to be dismissed for being
baseless, then the case is referred back to IBP
* IBP Investigationg commissioner: Original recommendation of REPRIMAND must be
maintained.
* IBP Board of Governors: Motion for Reconsideration Granted- penalty of
REPRIMAND.

* COMPLAINANT asked IBP to reconsider, but motion was denied.

* COMPLAINANT filed petition for certiorari with SC against IBP and RESPONDENT
counsel, says the earlier resolution denying the motion for reconsideration is already
final and executory.
ISSUE: Won Respondent lawyer may be held liable under Canon 22 of the CPR
Held: YES, BUT REPRIMANDED ONLY.
* IBP Resolution denying respondents motion for recon was not yet final and executory.
* We affirm the findings made by the IBP that complainant engaged the services of
respondent lawyer only for the preparation and submission of the appellant's brief and
the attorney's fees was payable upon the completion and submission of the appellant's
brief and not upon the termination of the case.
* This, notwithstanding, Atty. Dealca withdrew his appearance simply because of
complainant's failure to pay the remaining balance of P3,500.00, which does not appear
to be deliberate. Aggravated by respondents counsel's note to complainant withdrawing
as counsel which was couched in impolite and insulting language.
LAW INVOLVED:
Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: a lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him
the attorney's fees
Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
REPRIMANDED.
Case 83. Canoy vs Ortiz
COMPLAINANT:
* A complaint was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant by Elmer Canoy (Canoy)
accusing Atty. Jose Max Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and malpractice.

* Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC against his former employer,
Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines
* Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding.
* Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case.
* Canoy decided to follow-up the case himself with the NLRC.
* He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998,
for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers.
RESPONDENTS COMMENT:
* The comment filed by Atty. Ortiz was only self-hagiography.
* Since commencing his law practice in 1987, he has mostly catered to indigent and
low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself.
* claims that for more than ten years, his law office was a virtual adjunct of the Public
Attorney's Office with its steady stream of non-paying clients in the "hundreds or
thousands."
* He was confident that the illegal dismissal case would eventually be resolved by way
of compromise.
* He claims having prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit
the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case, but
admits that the deadline had already lapsed.
* He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his
election as Councilor of Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both his
functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer." Eventually, "his
desire to help was beyond physical limitations," and he withdrew from his other cases
and his "free legal services."
IBP Commissioners Findings: REPRIMANDED
IBP CBD: REPRIMANDED and WARNED.
LAW INVOLVED:

CANON 22 A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD

CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter. IAaCST
ISSUE: Won respondent lawyer is guilty?
HELD: Yes. Suspended from practice of Law for 1 month.
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that he would
not be able to make a timely filing, he should have informed Canoy of such fact. The
relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for
the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are
being defended.
City councilors are allowed to practice their profession or engage in any occupation
except during session hours, and in the case of lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz, subject to
certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this case
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from notice, with the warning
that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more severely

Case 84. Francisco vs Portugal

FACTS
A criminal case ensued in a shooting incident involving police officers (accused) where
they were tried and were found guilty for two counts of homicide and one attempted
homicide by the Sandiganbayan. Complainants engaged services of the respondents
for the accused.
Unfazed by the denial of his first filing of Motion for Reconsideration, respondent filed an
Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached
Second Motion for Reconsideration.3 Pending resolution by the Sandiganbayan,
respondent also filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam)
on 3 May 2002.
Complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone calls
they made to his office. Complainants went to respondents last known address only to
find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
More than a year after the petition was filed, in their own efforts of verifying their case,
they were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a Resolution4 dated 3
July 2002, denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.
Resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest5 had already been issued against
the accused because respondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing
to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
Thus complainants filed this complaint.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
RESONDENT- He was not the original counsel of the accused. He was merely
requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at
the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision. He claims that there was no formal
engagement undertaken by the parties. But only because of his sincere effort and in
true spirit of the Lawyers Oath did he file the Motion for Reconsideration and his
personal representation with the members of the Division of the Sandiganbayan who
promulgated the decision of conviction. He asserts that because of all the efforts he put
into the case of the accused, his other professional obligations were neglected and that
all these were done without proper and adequate remuneration.
He considered the fact that it was a case he had just inherited from the original counsel;
the effect of his handling the case on his other equally important professional
obligations; the lack of adequate financial consideration for handling the case; and his

plans to travel to the United States to explore further professional opportunities. He then
decided to formally withdraw as counsel for the accused. He wrote a letter to PO3
Rolando Joaquin (PO3 Joaquin), who served as the contact person between
respondent and complainants
He has asked the accused that he be discharged from the case and endorsed the
Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the latter to file with the Court. Unfortunately,
PO3 Joaquin did not do so, as he was keenly aware that it would be difficult to find a
new counsel who would be as equally accommodating as respondent.
ISSUE
Whether respondents withdrawal during the pendency of the case in conformity to the
rules and procedure and did it cause negligent act prejudicial to the case?
RULING
- the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of
respondent.
-Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.
- even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to defend, his
obligation embodied in the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
still remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of fervor in handling the case should
neither diminish nor cease just because of his perceived insufficiency of remuneration.
- Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a
lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed
the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should
have informed this Court through the appropriate manifestation that he had already
given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of
Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing, he was negligent
in handling the case of the accused.
- He could relieve himself of his responsibility as counsel only first by securing the
written conformity of the accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule 138,
Section 26 of the Rules of Court.15

- The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers right
to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the clients written
consent or from a good cause.
HOW SC RESOLVED
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
PRINCIPLE/LAW INVOLVED
Rule 22.02 of Canon 22

Case 85. Bengco vs Bernardo

FACTS
[O]n or before the period from 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, respondent with the help
and in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat ("Magat"), by using false
pretenses and deceitful words, [wilfully] and illegally committed fraudulent acts to the
effect that respondent would expedite the titling of the land belonging to the Miranda
family of Tagaytay City, who were the acquaintance of complainants.
Respondent and Magat convinced complainants that if they finance and deliver to them
the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money, they would expedite the titling of the
subject land. Once in possession of the said amount, far from complying with their
obligation to expedite and cause the titling of the subject land, respondent and Magat
[wilfully], unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said
amount to their personal use and benefit and despite demand upon them to return the
said amount, they failed and refused to do so.
Complainant filed this complaint
On February 1, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
That adopted and approved with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner ordering respondent, the restitution of the amount of
[P]200,000.00 within sixty (60) days from receipt of notice with Warning that if he does
not return the amount with in sixty days from receipt of this Order then he will be meted
the penalty of Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. On June 21, 2008,
Fidela filed a Manifestation21 stating that the RTC rendered a decision in the criminal
case for Estafa finding the accused, Atty. Bernardo and Magat "guilty of conspiracy in
the commission of Estafa under Article 315 par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and
both are sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum
to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum."
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

RESONDENT- the IBP resolution is not in accord with the rules considering that the
complaint was filed more than two (2) years from the alleged misconduct and therefore,
must have been dismissed outright; The misconduct complained of took place in 1997
and complainants filed the case only on 16 April 2004. As provided for by the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission of Bar Discipline, as amended, dated 24 March 2004, "A
complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2)
years from the date of the professional misconduct" (Section 1, Rule VIII).
COMPLAINANT- Fidela explained that it took them quite some time in filing the
administrative case because they took into consideration the possibility of an amicable
settlement instead of a judicial proceeding since it would stain the respondents
reputation as a lawyer; that the respondent went into hiding which prompted them to
seek the assistance of CIDG agents from Camp Olivas in order to trace the
respondents whereabouts; that the respondent was duly
accorded the opportunity to be heard; and finally, that no restitution of the P200,000.00
plus corresponding interest has yet been made by the respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the case filed should be dismissed because it has already prescribed being
that the complainant filed more than 2 years from the alleged misconduct?
RULING
- The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.
-There is no question that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself
admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through
Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchased.
- It is first worth mentioning that the respondents defense of prescription is untenable.
The Court has held that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The
lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of
the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.
Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the very oath
they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant
would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated
from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for
- It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a
criminal action filed against a lawyer despite having involved the same set of facts.

Jurisprudence has it "that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result
in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the respondents acquittal
does not necessarily exculpate him administratively." Disciplinary proceedings involve
no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the
official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to
the court for his conduct as an officer of the court
- As the records reveal, the RTC eventually convicted the respondent for the crime of
Estafa for which he was meted the penalty of sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one
(1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion
Temporal as maximum. Such criminal conviction clearly undermines the respondents
moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section 27 provides that:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
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 wilful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.
HOW SC RESOLVED
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN the amount of
P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt
of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the Court, through
the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN (10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN
WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him the additional penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for one (1) year.
PRINCIPLE/LAW INVOLVED
Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of lawyers

Case 86 Plaza vs Amamio

Facts:
Ryan S. Plaza (Plaza), Clerk of Court filed a complaint against Atty. Marcelina R.
Amamio (Amamio), Clerk of Court; Genoveva R. Vasquez (Vasquez), Legal Researcher,
and Floramay Patalinghug (Patalinghug), Court Stenographer.
Complainant alleges that he heard that some of the personnel of RTC (Branch 26) were
planning to hold a Sara Lee party in the Argao Hall of Justice and that upon learning of
the plan, he informed the personnel of the said court about Administrative Circular No.
3-92 prohibiting the use of the Halls of Justice for residential or commercial purposes. ,
Mr. Jimenez (security guard of hall) wrote that at around 11:05 in the morning of July 14,
2007, he received a telephone call from Ms. Vasquez approving the use of the entrance
lobby for the raffle draw which she claimed was authorized by Atty. Amamio. The
complainant stresses that holding the party and raffle draw inside the Argao Hall of
Justice was a clear violation of Administrative Circular 3-92.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS
The respondents argue that similar activities had been held before at the Argao Hall of
Justice. The respondents also claim that at the Cebu City Hall of Justice, raffle draws
were being conducted regularly and that the latest, which was held on March 30, 2007,
was sponsored by the very same people from Sara Lee. The respondents added that

since the building which houses the Argao Hall of Justice has been declared a cultural
heritage and is the centerpiece of the said municipality, then the activity planned by
Sara Lee was appropriate in promoting the town of Argao.
The respondents deny that a party was held, saying that only a raffle draw was
conducted and that only softdrinks and finger foods were served to the participants.
Finally, the three respondents maintain that they had performed their duties to the best
of their abilities, acted with absolute good faith devoid of malice, and had no intention to
prejudice the interests of the Court.
IBP RULING
Dismissed for lack of substantial evidence
OCA ruling
Reversed IBP ruling
SC ruling
Adopted OCA ruling, SUSPENDED FOR 1 MONTH
It is undisputed that on July 14, 2007, Sara Lee held a raffle draw at the ground floor
lobby of the Argao Hall of Justice. Ms. Virginia C. Tecson, Sara Lees Business
Manager, wrote a letter addressed to the Executive Judge of the RTC, Branch 26,
Argao, Cebu, requesting permission for the holding of a raffle draw at the Argao Hall of
Justice. Indeed, the holding of a raffle draw at the Argao Hall of Justice by the staff of
Sara Lee degraded the honor and dignity of the court and exposed the premises, as
well as the judicial records to danger of loss or damage
Legal Provision Involved
Administrative Circular No. 3-92 This reminder in Administrative Circular No. 3-92 was
reiterated in Administrative Circular No. 1-99[17] where we described courts as temples
of justice and as such, their dignity and sanctity must, at all times, be preserved and
enhanced. The Court thus exhorted its officials and employees to strive to inspire public
respect for the justice system by, among others, not using their offices as a residence
or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions
A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC, Section 3, Part I
SEC. 3. USE OF HOJ.

SEC. 3.1 The HOJ shall be for the exclusive use of Judges, Prosecutors, Public
Attorneys, Probation and Parole Officers and, in the proper cases, the Registries of
Deeds, including their support personnel
SEC. 3.2 The HOJ shall be used only for court and office purposes and shall not be
used for residential, i.e., dwelling or sleeping, or commercial purposes.

Case 87: Tiong vs Florendo

Facts: Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T.
Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly
and repair of motor vehicles inPaldit, Sison, Pangasinan. they engaged the services of
respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator
of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the US. , complainant began
to suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair which was confirmed.
Both engaged in the illicit affair admitted their affair to their spouses. the parties in the
presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and Ma. Elena executed
and signed an affidavit2attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective
spouses' forgiveness.
Complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging
respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct
Respondents defense

Admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon.
IBP ruling
1 year suspension
SC ruling
Adopted IBP ruling, 6 month Suspension
It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of good moral character is
not only a condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain
one's good standing in the legal profession.
Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for
the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Undeniably,
therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly
immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court.13 Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his
office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office,
grossly immoral conduct, among others.
It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant
to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of
the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the
courts. It is not an investigation into the acts of respondent as a husband but on his
conduct as an officer of the Court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Legal Provisions involved
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7,Rule 7.03

88. IN RE: Suspension From The Practice Of Law In The Territory Of Guam Of
Atty. Leon G. Maquera
B.M. No. 793
July 30, 2004
Facts:

In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court of the
suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam. He
was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his
client's property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence
obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has
also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in
this realm, provided the foreign court's action is by reason of an act or omission
constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or
a violation of the lawyer's oath.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation report and recommendation. In its decision, the Superior Court of Guam
stated that Maquera was the counsel of a certain Castro. Benavente the creditor Castro,
obtained a judgement against Castro, thus Castro;s property was to be sold at a public
auction in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente. However, Castro retains the right
of redemption.
In consideration of Maqueras legal services, Castro entered into an oral agreement with
Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter. On January 8, 1988,
Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in
satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property
transferred in his name.And after, sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for
Three Hundred Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).
The Guam Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of Guam praying
that Maquera be sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, the Committee
claimed that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services. The
Committee further alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the
requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into a
business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a
client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyer's acquisition of such
interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood
by the client and reduced in writing.
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that
although the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct, "there is no evidence to
establish that Maquera committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines."However, the

IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a
member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the
name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139A of the Revised Rules of Court.
Issue:
Whether or not Maquera, who was suspended from the practice of law in Guam, be
suspended as member of the Philippine Bar on the same ground of his suspension in
Guam.
Ruling:
The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in
a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
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 admission
to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court
or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted
as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be
prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension
In the case at bar such transaction made by Maquera falls squarely under Article 1492
in relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 5
of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyer's acquisition by assignment of the client's property
which is the subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article 1492, the
prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. This is founded on public policy
because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity
and ignorance of his client30 and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.

Such acts are violative of a lawyer's sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients.
They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17
which states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful
the trust and confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but
is also a continuing requirement to maintain one's good's standing in the legal
profession.
The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his behalf
regarding the charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain that
he did receive the Notice of Hearing earlier sent by the IBP's Commission on Bar
Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera's current and correct address in
Guam in order that another notice, this time specifically informing him of the charges
against him and requiring him to explain why he should not be suspended or disbarred
on those grounds (through this Resolution), may be sent to him.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from
the practice of law for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the
present. Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment of
membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP,
and default in such payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

Case # 89 Valencia vs Antiniw

1. Administrative Cases No. 1302 and 1391.

Facts: In 1933, complainant Paulino Valencia (Paulino in short) and his wife Romana
allegedly bought a parcel of land, where they built their residential house, from a certain
Serapia Raymundo, an heir of Pedro Raymundo the original owner. However, they
failed to register the sale or secure a transfer certificate of title in their names.
Sometime in December, 1968, a conference was held in the house of Atty. Eduardo
Jovellanos to settle the land dispute between Serapia Raymundo (Serapia in short)
another heir of Pedro Raymundo, and the Valencia spouses since both were relatives
and distant kin of Atty. Jovellanos. Serapia was willing to relinquish ownership if the
Valencias could show documents evidencing ownership. Paulino exhibited a deed of
sale written in the Ilocano dialect. However, Serapia claimed that the deed covered a
different property. Paulino and Serapia were not able to settle their difference
On December 15, 1969 Serapia, assisted by Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting, filed a
complaint against Paulino for the recovery of possession with damages he Valencias
engaged the services of Atty. Dionisio Antiniw. Atty. Antiniw advised them to present a
notarized deed of sale in lieu of the private document written in Ilocano. For this
purpose, Paulino gave Atty. Antiniw an amount of P200.00 to pay the person who would
falsify the signature of the alleged vendor A "Compraventa Definitiva was executed
purporting to be a sale of the questioned lot
On January 22, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, rendered a
decision in favor of plaintiff, Serapia Raymundo. The lower court expressed the belief
that the said document is not authentic. Paulino, thereafter, filed a Petition for Certiorari,
under Rule 65, with Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals alleging that the
trial court failed to provide a workable solution concerning his house. While the petition
was pending, the trial court, on March 9, 1973, issued an order of execution stating that
"the decision in this case has already become final and executory". On March 14, 1973,
a writ of execution was issued.
On March 20, 1973, Serapia sold 40 square meters of the litigated lot to Atty. Jovellanos
and the remaining portion she sold to her counsel, Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting, on April
25, 1973. On March 4, 1974, Paulino filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as
Administrative Case No. 1302) against Atty. Cabanting on the ground that said counsel
allegedly violated Article 1491 of the New Civil Code as well as Article II of the Canons
of Professional Ethics, prohibiting the purchase of property under litigation by a counsel.
On March 21, 1974 the appellate court dismissed the petition of Paulino. On October
14, 1974, Constancia Valencia, daughter of Paulino, filed a disbarment proceeding

(docketed as Administrative Case No. 1391) against Atty. Dionisio Antiniw for his
participation in the forgery of "Compraventa Definitiva" and its subsequent introduction
as evidence for his client; and also, against Attys. Eduardo Jovellanos and Arsenio
Cabanting for purchasing a litigated property allegedly in violation of Article 1491 of the
New Civil Code; and against the three lawyers, for allegedly rigging Civil Case No. V2170 against her parents
On August 17, 1975, Constancia Valencia filed additional charges against Atty. Antiniw
and Atty. Jovellanos as follows:
1. AGAINST ATTY. DIONISIO ANTINIW:
In the year 1973 Atty. Dionisio Antiniw fraudulently and in confabulation with one Lydia
Bernal had a deed of sale, fabricated, executed and ratified before him as Notary Public
by one Santiago Bernal in favor of Lydia Bernal when as a matter of fact said Santiago
Bernal had died already about eight years before in the year 1965.
2. AGAINST ATTY. EDUARDO JOVELLANOS:
In the year 1954 Atty. Eduardo Jovellanos, fraudulently and in bad faith, in confabulation
with Rosa de los Santos as vendee had, as Notary Public, executed and ratified before
him, two (2) deeds of sale in favor of said Rosa de los Santos when as a matter of fact
the said deeds were not in fact executed by the supposed vendor Rufino Rincoraya and
so Rufino Rincoraya had filed a Civil Case in Court to annul and declare void the said
sales (p. 7, Report)
2. Administrative Case No. 1543.
A deed of donation propter nuptias involving the transfer of a piece of land by the
grandparents of Lydia Bernal (complainant,) in favor of her parents, was lost during the
last world war. For this reason, her grandmother (the living donor) executed a deed of
confirmation of the donation propter nuptias with renunciation of her rights over the
property. Notwithstanding the deed, her grandmother still offered to sell the same
property in favor of the complainant, ostensibly to strengthen the deed of donation (to
prevent others from claim-ing the property).
On consultation, Atty., Antiniw advised them to execute a deed of sale. Atty. Antiniw
allegedly prepared and notarized the deed of sale in the name of her grandfather
(deceased at the time of signing) with her grandmother's approval. Felicidad BernalDuzon, her aunt who had a claim over the property filed a complaint against her (Lydia
Bernal) and her counsel, Atty. Antiniw for falsification of a public document. The fiscal

exonerated the counsel for lack of evidence, while a case was filed in court against
Lydia Bernal.
On October 3, 1975, Lydia Bernal filed a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Antiniw for
illegal acts and bad advice. Pursuant to the resolution of the First Division of this Court
dated December 9, 1974, the resolution of the Second Division dated March 3, 1975
and the two resolutions of the Second Division both dated December 3, 1975,
Administrative Cases Nos. 1302, 1391 and 1543 were referred to the Office of the
Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Upon formal request of
Constancia L. Valencia and Lydia Bernal dated March 3, 1976, all of these cases were
ordered consolidated by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza per his handwritten
directive of March 9, 1976. On April 12, 1988, We referred the investigation of these
cases to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. When Atty. Jovellanos was appointed as
Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan, We referred the
investigation of these cases to Acting Presiding Judge Cesar Mindaro, Regional Trial
Court, for further investigation.
In view of the seriousness of the charge against the respondents and the alleged
threats against the person of complainant Constancia L. Valencia, We directed the
transfer of investigation to the Regional Trial Court of Manila. After investigation, Judge
Catalino Castaeda, Jr., recommended the dismissal of cases against Atty. Jovellanos
and Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting; dismissal of Administrative Case No. 1543 and the
additional charges in Administrative Case No. 1391 against Antiniw and Judge
Jovellanos; however, he recommended the suspension of Atty. Antiniw from the practice
of law for six months finding him guilty of malpractice in falsifying the "Compraventa
Definitiva."
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Cabanting purchased the subject property in violation of Art.
1491 of the New Civil Code.
2. Whether or not Attys. Antiniw and Jovellanos are guilty of malpractice in falsifying
notarial documents.
3. Whether or not the three lawyers connived in rigging Civil Case No. V-2170.
HELD: Under Article 1491 of the New Civil Code: The following persons cannot acquire
by purchase, even at a public of judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another:

(5) . . . this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to
lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation
in which they make take part by virtue of their profession.
Public policy prohibits the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved. It is
intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client. Greed may get the
better of the sentiments of loyalty and disinterestedness. Any violation of this prohibition
would constitute malpractice and is a ground for suspension.
Art. 1491, prohibiting the sale to the counsel concerned, applies only while the litigation
is pending.
In the case at bar, while it is true that Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting purchased the lot
after finality of judgment, there was still a pending certiorari proceeding. A thing is said
to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but also
from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judgeLogic
indicates, in certiorari proceedings, that the appellate court may either grant or dismiss
the petition. Hence, it is not safe to conclude, for purposes under Art. 1491 that the
litigation has terminated when the judgment of the trial court become final while a
certiorari connected therewith is still in progress. Thus, purchase of the property by Atty.
Cabanting in this case constitutes malpractice in violation of Art. 1491 and the Canons
of Professional Ethics. Clearly, this malpractice is a ground for suspension. The sale in
favor of Atty. Jovellanos does not constitute malpractice. There was no attorney-client
relationship between Serapia and Atty. Jovellanos, considering that the latter did not
take part as counsel in Civil Case No. V-2170. The transaction is not covered by Art.
1491 nor by the Canons adverted to.
It is asserted by Paulino that Atty. Antiniw asked for and received the sum of P200.00 in
consideration of his executing the document "Compraventa Definitiva" which would
show that Paulino bought the property. This charge, Atty. Antiniw simply denied. It is
settled jurisprudence that affirmative testimony is given greater weight than negative
testimony When an individual's integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that
he deny the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence
for the relator and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and
integrity which at all time is expected of him.
Although Paulino was a common farmer who finished only Grade IV, his testimony, even
if not corroborated by another witness, deserves credence and can be relied upon. His
declaration dwelt on a subject which was so delicate and confidential that it would be
difficult to believe the he fabricated his evidence. There is a clear preponderant
evidence that Atty. Antiniw committed falsification of a deed of sale, and its subsequent

introduction in court prejudices his prime duty in the administration of justice as an

officer of the court.
A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client but not at the expense of truth.
The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that
end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always
be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. While a lawyer must advocate his client's
cause in utmost earnestness and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at
liberty to resort to illegal means for his client's interest. It is the duty of an attorney to
employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means as are
consistent with truth and honor.
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. By far, the most
important of them is mindfulness that a lawyer is an officer of the court. This Court may
suspend or disbar a lawyer whose acts show his unfitness to continue as a member of
the Bar. Disbarment, therefore, is not meant as a punishment depriving him of a source
of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this function should be competent, honorable and reliable in
order that courts and the public may rightly repose confidence in them. Atty. Antiniw
failed to live up to the high standards of the law profession.
The other charges of malpractice against Atty. Antiniw and Atty. Jovellanos should be
dismissed for lack of evidence. During the proceedings in Administrative Case No.
1543, Lydia Bernal testified in full on direct examination, but she never submitted herself
for cross-examination. Several subpoenas for cross-examination were unheeded. She
eventually requested the withdrawal of her complaint.
Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal
presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved.
The case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Since Atty.
Antiniw was not accorded this procedural due process, it is but proper that the direct
testimony of Lydia Bernal be stricken out. In view also of the affidavit of desistance
executed by the complainant, Administrative Case No. 1543 should be dismissed.
Although the filing of an affidavit of desistance by complainant for lack of interest does
not ipso facto result in the termination of a case for suspension or disbarment of an
erring lawyer. We are constrained in the case at bar, to dismiss the same because there
was no evidence to substantiate the charges.
The additional charge against Atty. Antiniw in Administrative Case No. 1391 is
predicated on the information furnished by Lydia Bernal. It was not based on the

personal knowledge of Constancia L. Valencia: hence, hearsay. "Any evidence, whether

oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the
witness stand. Being hearsay, the evidence presented is inadmissible.
The additional charge filed by Constancia L. Valencia against Atty. Jovellanos in
Administrative Case No. 1391 was not proved at all. Complainant failed to prove her
additional charges. There is no evidence on record that the three lawyers involved in
these administrative cases conspired in executing the falsified "Compraventa Definitiva"
and rigged the Civil Case No. V-2170.
Atty. Jovellanos is a distant kin of the Raymundos and Valencias. In fact, he and the
Valencias are neighbors and only two meters separate their houses. It would not be
believable that Atty. Jovellanos, a practicing lawyer, would hold a meeting with the heirs
of Pedro Raymundo in his house with the intention of inducing them to sue the
Valencias. Atty.
Jovellanos even tried to settle the differences between the parties in a meeting held in
his house. He appeared in Civil Case No. V-2170 as an involuntary witness to attest to
the holding of the conference.
Besides, the camaraderie among lawyers is not proof of conspiracy, but a sign of
brotherhood among them. One of the fourfold duties of a lawyer is his duty to the Bar. A
lawyer should treat the opposing counsel, and his brethren in the law profession, with
courtesy, dignity and civility. They may "do as adversaries do in law: strive mightily but
(they) eat and drink as friends." This friendship does not connote conspiracy.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring: 1. Dionisio Antiniw DISBARRED
from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off from the roll of attorneys;
2. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months from
finality of this judgment; and 3. Administrative Case No. 1391 against Attorney Eduardo
Jovellanos

Case 90 RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, complainant , vs. ATTY. ISMAEL F.MEJIA,

respondent .
-plea for reinstatement in the practice of law filed by Ismael F. Mejia (Mejia) who is
already seventy-one years old and barred from the practice of law for fifteen years
Facts
Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the following
administrative offenses:
1. misappropriating and converting to his personal use:
* part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on
property belonging to Bernardo
* part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and
expenses in connection with the registration of title of Bernardo to another property

2. falsification of certain documents

special power of attorney
deed of sale
deed of assignment
3. issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan
obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00
Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision Per Curiam: guilty of all the charges
against him and hereby imposes on him the penalty of DISBARMENT
Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law which
was denied by SC.
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent
on the sound discretion of the Court. The Court will take into consideration the
applicant's character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of
the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and
the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement.
According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered enough. Through his
reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the indignity that
they have suffered due to his disbarment.
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. While the age of the petitioner and
the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment
are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes
cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other
transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse.
Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also
knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders.
GRANTED

Case 91. RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS

ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, petitioner
To recall, on February 4, 2004, the Court promulgated a Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222,
to DISBAR Atty. DANILO DE GUZMAN from the practice of law.
The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile Law during the
2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that time was employed as an assistant lawyer in
the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos, was the
examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The Court had adopted

the findings of the Investigating Committee, which identified petitioner as the person
who had downloaded the test questions from the computer of Balgos and faxed them to
other persons.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably recommended the reinstatement of
petitioner in the Philippine Bar. Petitioner humbly acknowledged the damaging impact of
his act which unfortunately, compromised the integrity of the bar examinations.
Petitioner averred that he has since learned from his mistakes and has taken the said
humbling experience to make him a better person. Meanwhile, as part of his Petition,
petitioner submitted testimonials and endorsements of various individuals and entities
all attesting to his good moral character.
There may be a reasonable ground to consider the herein Petition.
We deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to seven
(7) years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years he has
already served his disbarment.
In cases where we have deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of disbarment
imposed on the lawyer, we have taken into account the remorse of the disbarred lawyer
4 and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of the bar.
Petitioner's subsequent track record in public service affords the Court some hope that if
he were to reacquire membership in the Philippine bar, his achievements as a lawyer
would redound to the general good and more than mitigate the stain on his record.
Nonetheless, we wish to impart
to him the following stern warning:
"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to
repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore
the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and
sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of
the body politic."
GRANTED

COMMUTED to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW,

reckoned from February 4, 2004

Case 92. Victorina Bautista vs.Atty. Sergio Bernabe

Notarial Practice
A disbarment proceeding for malpractice and unethical conduct for the performance of
duties as a notary public and a lawyer.
Facts:
* Bautista alleged that Bernabe prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay
executed by Salonga and Bautistas mother, Basilia dela Cruz.
* The joint affidavit states that Lucas and his family occupy a land in Bulacan for more
than 30 years.
* However, it was declared by Bautista that her mother could not have made the
affidavit in 1998 because she already died in 1961.
* Bernabe denied and admitted that he has no knowledge of Basilias death. Also, when
he requested Basilias presence, a certain Pronebo, allegedly her son-in-law, appeared
and signed above her name with a by. Therefore, no forgery was committed.
* However, in an affidavit of desistance, Bautista stated that he was only made to sign
by Oloroso and Atty. Magsino, and has never appeared before Atty. Villarin. That she
was only an instrument to destroy the good name of Bernabe and she further wished to
dismiss the disbarment case.
Investigating Commissioner:
* Be suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.
* Commission for notary public be revoked.

* Be barred from being granted a notarial commission for a year.

IBP Board of Governors:
* Be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
* Commission for notary public be revoked.
* Be barred from being granted a notarial commission for 2 years.
Issue:
WON Bernabe violated the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice through notarizing a
document without the signatory stated appearing personally
Ruling:
* Bernabe is guilty of the violation
* It is already established that Basilia is dead and whether or not Bernabe had
knowledge of such, he is liable for not requiring the personal appearance of Basilia
before affixing his seal and signature to the instrument.
* Also, allowing Pronebo was also against the law. Unless, he is a legal representative
and his name is considered as a signatory as well.
* This is to attest the truth of the facts stated therein.
* It is also a violation of Canon 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Notarial law for not exercising utmost diligence and complying with the mandates of the
law.
* Bautistas desistance also does not render the pursuance of the case as disciplinary
proceedings does not require private properties as it is aimed to the general public
* Notarial commission is revoked.
* Disqualified from reappointment as notary public for 2 years.
* Suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Case 93. Judge Lily Lydia Laquindanum vs. Atty. Nestor Quintana
Notarial Practice
An administrative case grounded on the practice of notarial activities beyond the
designated jurisdictional limit as well as allowing non-lawyers to perform tasks
specifically designated for lawyers.
Facts:
1. According to Laquindanum:
- A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to monitor the activities and make
sure that notaries public shall not extend beyond their jurisdictional limit.
- Judge wrote Quintana and directed him to stop notarizing documents in the places
within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato.
- However, Quintana continued as evidenced by an affidavit of loss of an ATM card and
drivers license.
- Sec. 11, Rule III of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Quintana could not extend notarial
acts beyond Cotabato City and Province of Maguindanao. And Midsayap is part of the
Province of Cotabato.
- Also, it was later found out that his wife performed notarial acts.
2. According to Quintana:
- He applied a petition for notarial commission before the RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato
but was not acted up by Laquindanum for 3 weeks. The reason for inaction is his
question affiliation with the IBP Cotabato City Chapter and required him of certification
of payments.
- He withdrew his petition and obtained a commission for notary public in the RTC,
Branch 14 of Cotabato City.
- Also, he alleged that the judge singled him out as he is tasked with so many
requirements while the others were not and humiliated him to his clients and colleagues.
- He argued that Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato and subscribed
documents in his office in Midsayap.

- Laquindanum had no authority to issue such directive as it is only Judge Concha, the
person who issued notarial commission, and SC can do such.
- He also contended that as a lawyer in good standing, he can practice anywhere in the
Philippines.
3. During investigation
- Judge presented a Deed of Donation dated in 2004 and notarized by Quintana.
However, the said signatory in the document was already dead since 2003.
- He testified that Quintana continued to notarize documents in 2006-2007 even if his
commission expired in 2005 and not renewed the same. These are supported by:
a. affidavit of loss of title
b. certificate of candidacy
c. affidavit of loss of drivers license
d. affidavit of loss
- These were admitted by Quintana except the affidavit of loss of ATM card, affidavit of
loss of drivers license and the affidavit of loss as they were signed by his wife. These
were the result of the entrapment operation done by the judge to impute a violation to
him. He also slapped his wife because of it.
- Quintana alleged that this was also caused by his refusal to transfer membership in
the Kidapawan Chapter wherein her sister is the president.
- The judge denied and stated that it was caused by Quintanas refusal to pay IBP dues.
- Quintana alleged that it was only an oversight and prayed that he be given the chance
to send. He also asked for forgiveness and not to repeat the accusations as notarial
acts as it support his family. He then submitted the evidences that he paid his IBP dues.
- The judge submitted an official receipt that proves her contention that it was only in
2006
that Quintana paid his dues and that during the petition for notarial commission, he has
not paid his dues yet.

OBC:
* Quintana be disqualified in the notary public for 2 years and suspension for 6 months
* He is not authorized to do notarial acts beyond Cotabato City and the Province of
Maguindanao, where Midsayap is beyond the stated limits. (Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice)
* Also, evidenced by the affidavits, his wife performed notarial acts even if she is
unauthorized to do so. And respondent, as an official notarial office, is held responsible
for the acts and liabilities that his office will incur.
* Furthermore, it was also a violation of the rules on notarial practice to perform notarial
acts even if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization. (Rule 9 of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
* Also, it is sontended that the lawyer of good standings right to practice law anywhere
in the Philippines and relating it to notarial practice, is strictly regulated by the rules on
notarial practice. Therefore, law on territorial jurisdiction applies. (Rule 9 of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice)
Issue:
1. WON Atty. Quinatana notarized documents outside his jurisdictional limit
2. WON he performed notarial acts with an expired commission
3. WON he let his wife notarize documents in his absence
4. WON he notarized a document
Ruling:
* In all 4 issues, Atty. Quintana was guilty. These were all violations of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice and Code of Professional Responsibility.
* This also partakes malpractice of law, falsification as well as deliberate falsehood.
* Signing by his wife in times of his absence, makes him guilty of Canon 9 or assisting
the unauthorized practice of law.

* He also fell short of Canon 7 which directs him t uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession.
* Disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for 2 years and suspended for
the practice of law for 6 months.

Case 94. Efigenia Tenoso vs Atty Anselmo Echanez

Facts:
Complainant Efigenia Tenoso filed a complaint against Atty Anselmo Echanez,
respondent alleging that the latter was engaged in notarial practice without having been
properly commissioned by RTC Santiago City, the court having jurisdiction over Cordon,
Isabela. The complainant support her allegations by presenting documents issued by
Executive Judge Efren Cacatian bearing the names of commissioned notaries public for
the years 2006 to 2008 which respondents name does not appear; documents
notarized by the respondent in year 2006, 2007 and 2008, and a copy of a certification
issued by Judge Cacatian stating respondents notarization could not be authenticated.
Respondent denied the allegations and added he never committed any malpractice, nor
deceit nor have violated the lawyers oath and that such allegations is politically
motivated and meant to harass or intimidate him and guessed that the affidavitcomplaint were tampered and adulterated or that somebody might forged his signature.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty Echanezs contention is tenable.
Rulings:
No. The court empahasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and
that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to this brethren in
the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most
important functions of the State-the administration of justice-as an officer of the court.
Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency,
but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In misrepresenting himself as a
notary public, respondent exposed party-ligitants, courts, other lawyers and the general

public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. Respondent

committed act of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncement of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondents conduct falls miserably
short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from
lawyers. It is proper that he be sanctioned. SUSPEND him from the practice of law for
two (2) years and DISQUALIFY him from being commissioned as a notary public for two
(2) years.

Case 95. Espinoza vs Atty. Omana

FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought
Omanas legal advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately.
Omana prepared a document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and
Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took
custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal property.
Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who
informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not valid. They hired the
services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana
denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and
requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana
alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and
managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff
forged her signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.
W/N the Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid.
HELD: SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not
facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation
of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly
what Omaa did in this case. Atty. Julieta A. Omaa was suspended from the practice of

law for one year. Her notarial commission was revoked.and suspended her as a notary
public for two years.