CANON 7

RE: 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
This case is about an inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines. June
3, 1989, the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was held at the
Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of
office on July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court. However, because of widespread reports about the
intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, the Supreme Court resolved to suspend the
oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect to investigate. Among the allegations were the use of government
planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done
in violation of the IBP By-Laws. Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant vote-buying
by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA, and that
government positions were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary. There was also the
billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly wined and dined continuously,
womened, and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes xxx which ranged from P15K to
P20K, and on election day, to as much as P50K.

ISSUE:
WON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering, inappropriate use of government resources, and
vote-buying during the IBP national elections.
HELD:
It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the
Integrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 14 of the IBP By-laws
and made a travesty of the idea of a strictly non-political IBP shrined in Sec. 4. The candidates and many
of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal
profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to:
- Obey and uphold the constitutionand the laws;
- Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes;
- Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as provided in Art. VIII Sec. 8 may be the
reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers.
Fernandez vs Grecia
FACTS:
Fernandez et al filed a disbarment case against Atty Grecia for theft of documents
pertaining tothe latters case against the petitioners. A certain Fe Linda Aves was

admitted and diagnosed of having a mild pre-eclampsia on December 20, 1990. Five
days later, he was discharged to celebrate Christmas with her family, unfortunately on
December 26, 1990, the said patient died with her unborn child, prompting the Aves
family to brought an actgion for damages against the doctors and the hospital.
(Fernandez et al.)
During the litigation in the lower court, Atty Grecia, allegedly asked the clerk of court the
medical chart of the aforementioned patient which was at that time in the court's
possesion, and thereafter tore two pages identified as pages 72 and 73.
In view of Atty Grecia's unprofessional conduct, the petitioners filed the case for
disbarment.
Issue:
WON the disbarment case is meritorious.
Held:
To quoute the Supreme Courts decision, they say that "by descending to the level of a
common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession.
He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable
fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR."
Atty Grecia was then ordered disbarred, his license to practice law in the Philippines
cancelled and his name was ordered to be stricken out of the Roll of Attorneys.
The Supreme Court cited Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 in the Rules of Professional
Responsibility being violated by Atty Grecia, notwitsanding that he was once disbarred
to practice law on November 12, 1987 for his 'unholy alliance' with a judge in Quezon
city to rip off banks and Chinese business firms. And that 8 months after the Supreme
Court heeding his pleas for compassion and promise to mend his ways, it was just eight
months after that he is faced with yet another disbarment case.
SANTOS JR. vs. LLAMAS
FACTS:

Soliman Santos, a member of the Bar filed a complaint for misrepresentation and nonpayment of bar membership dues against Atty. Francisco Llamas. Santos bases his claims on the
grounds that 1) Llamas has been dismissed as Pasay City Judge and 2) his conviction for estafa.
However, Llamas contends that 1) his dismissal was reversed and set aside 2) that his principal
occupation was a farm, which he had declared in his Income Tax Return. And moreover, since he
was a senior citizen, he was exempt in paying (in pursuant to Sec 4, RA 7432),and that Llamas
believed in good faith that he is only allowed a limited practice

ISSUE:
: WoN Llamas can be held administratively liable?
HELD:
YES.
1)

A lawyer by indicating BP- Rizal xxxx in his pleadings, thereby misrepresenting to the
public and the courts that he had paid his IBP due, is guilty of violating
a. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonet, immoral or deceitful conduct
b. Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all timed uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the IBP
c. Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court
Rule 10.01- A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court, nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by an artifice

A lawyers failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings that he filed in
court indeed merit the most severe penalty --- HOWEVER, in view of Llamasadvanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court held a penalty of
1 year suspension or until he paid his dues, as appropriate.

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP
DUES
FACTS:
Bar Matter in the Supreme Court is a Request for Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues.
Petitioner, Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., is being assessed P12,035 in IBP dues for the years 19772005. After admittance to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Phil Civil Service from 1962 to
1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the US from 1986 to his retirement in 2003.
ISSUES
WON Petitioners inactivity in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service and when working
abroad, entitles him to exemption from payment of IBP dues.
HELD:
No.

The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire law population. This
requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of
law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. This is toward defraying the expenses
of regulation of the profession to which they themselves belong.
Membership in the bar is a privilege (as opposed to a property right) burdened with conditions, one
of which is the payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such
privilege if the gravity thereof warrants
VELEZ VS. DE VERA
FACTS:
On April 11, 2005, Zoilo Antonio Velez filed a complaint for the suspension and/or
disbarment of Atty. Leonard De Vera based on the latter's alleged misrepresentation in concealing
the suspension order rendered against him by the State Bar of California. Velez averred that Atty.
De Vera lacked the moral competence necessary to lead the country's most noble profession. It
appears that Atty. De Vera handled an insurance case in California involving a certain Julius
Willis III who figured in an automobile accident in 1986. He was authorized by the elder Willis
(father of Julius) for the release of the funds in settlement of the case. He then received a check
in settlement of the case which he deposited to his personal account. An administrative case was
filed against him before the State Bar of California and it was recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for three years. Thereafter, Atty. de Vera resigned from the
California Bar which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of California.
On April 15, 2005, Atty. De Vera filed a letter-request with the Court for his oathtaking as IBP
National President. In a regular meeting on May 13, 2005, the IBP Board, by 2/3 vote, resolved
to remove Atty. De Vera as member of the IBP Board and as EVP. Atty. De Vera allegedly made
untruthful statements, innuendos and blatant lies during the Plenary Session of the IBP 10th
National Convention of Lawyers on April 22, 2005, making it appear that the decision of the IBP
Board to withdraw the Petition questioning R.A. 9227, which authorizes the increase in the
salaries of judges and justices, and to increase filing fees was due to influence and pressure from
the Supreme Court, thereby bringing the IBP Board and the IBP as a whole in public contempt
and disrepute, in violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
which mandates that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is substantial proof that Atty. De Vera of malpractice on the part of
De Vera
HELD:

There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. De Vera independent

of the recommendation of suspension by the hearingofficer of the State Bar of California.
The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of California,standing alone,
is not proof of malpractice. The Court has emphasized in the case of the Suspension from the
Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G.Maquera that the judgment of
suspension against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer
may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if the basis of the
foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this
jurisdiction. The judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of
unethical acts as lawyer. . Complainant must prove by substantial evidence the facts upon which
the recommendation by the hearing officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must then
prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. Nevertheless, there is
substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. De Vera independent of the
recommendation of suspension by the hearing officer of the State Bar of California. By insisting
that he was authorized by the elder Willis to use the funds, Atty. de Vera has impliedly admitted
the use of his client's funds for his own personal use. In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in
holding on to his clients money without the latters acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity
and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same
for his own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused
dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that
the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession
betrays their trust and confidence. Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to
his client.
IN RE DIAO
FACTS:
Telesforo A. Diao passed the Bar Examinations in 1953. Two years after, Severino
Martinez charged him (Diao) of misrepresentation in the application of the examinations
becasue Diao failed to meet the academic pre-requisites. Diao did not complete
secondary education (high school) and did not attend Quisumbing College nor obtained
an Associate in Arts degree from the said institution.
Diao admitted the charge but claimed that he left high school in his third year because
he served in the U.S. Army. He passed the General Classification Test, which was said
to be an equivalent to a high school diploma.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Diao should continue to practice law?

HELD:
NO.
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but
due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was
thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false
pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular
manner is equally essential..

ZAGUIRRE V. CASTILLO
FACTS:
Complainant and respondent had their illicit relationship while the latter was preparing to
take the bar examinations. After the admission of the respondent to the Philippine Bar,
complainant learned that he was already married. Respondent, who by now is a lawyer, executed
an affidavit, admitting his relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child
she was carrying as his. After the birth of the baby, however, respondent had started to refuse
recognizing the child and giving her any form of support. After due hearing, the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline found Atty. Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he
be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.
HELD:
YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Canon 7
and Rule 7.03 of the same Code.
The conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.
Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of
morality required of every lawyer. Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his
notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates
a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a
noble profession, tantamount to self-stultification.
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even
if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.

TAN V. SABANDAL
FACTS:
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his
oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Since then, he had filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's
oath.
Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where
Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the
Bar. In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of
any acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar.
However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for
cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator of
the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a
parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of
acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was
later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not
redeemed the land since then.
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement
canceled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank;
provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to
the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent
refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also
paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he
already submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil
case has been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to
possess good moral character.
It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could
not but have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well

of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which
cannot be erased by the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence
was made because the suit has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor
and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed
against him during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for
reconsiderations reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as
"including at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
TAPUCAR V TAPUCAR
FACTS:

Complainant Remedios Tapucar seeks the disbarment of husband, Atty. Lauro

Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with
Elena Pena under scandalous circumstances. Prior to complaint, he has already
been charged four times for conduct unbecoming of an officer, and has already
been suspended, and dismissed from being a CFI judge
The suspension and dismissal on immorality did not stop him from continue
living with Elena and leaving Remedios and her 11 children. He and Elena even
moved back to Antipolo from GenSan, where they got married despite the
subsistence of a previous marriage
His lawyer-daughter filed the disbarment proceedings, represented her mother,
from which the IBP recommended his disbarment
ISSUE
WON the recommendation for disbarment is justified
HELD:
The recommendation by the IBP is sufficient to justify his disbarment as a good
moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal
profession but must remain intact in order to maintain good standing in the
profession. It is essential that we have a high-toned sense of morality. CPR Rule
7.03 is clear that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects

on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public of private life
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Lawyers
must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, especially
Tapucar as he was once a member of the bench who must be free from
impropriety; like judges, lawyers are invested with public trust, that faith and
confidence by the public to the law is ensured. As such, the court may disbar or
suspend a lawyer for misconduct whether in his professional or personal
capacity, but this is only exercised if there is a clear case of misconduct. In case
at bar, despite the previous sanctions, he still persisted in his illicit relations and
arrogant even, in the face of charges against him. All of these are violative of the
lawyers oath and in great disregard of the law

Guevarra vs. Eala

Facts: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for

Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty.
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for
"grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's
oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000
when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene)
introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a
sportscaster, to him as her friend who was married to Mary
Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene
had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as
well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss
you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed that
Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go

home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts,

she replied that she slept at her parents' house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More
so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together
on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted
them following which Irene abandoned theconjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's
bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love
You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained
a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his
wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave
birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the
Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever
flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of
the matter being that their relationship was low profile and
known only to the immediate members of their respective
families. He also said that his special relationship with
Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
ground for disbarment.
Issue: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the
practice
of
Law.
Held: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship
between a married lawyer and a married woman who is
not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried
out
discreetly.

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere

fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is
not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such
illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the
marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital
relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations
outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as
it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed
by
our
laws.
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took
before admission to practice law. Furthermore, respondent
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in
"unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes
a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely
reflects
on
his
fitness
to
practice
law."
As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and
a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are
presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extramarital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that
her marriage with complainant was null and void, and
despite respondent himself being married, he showed
disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he
betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent
Facts:
The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of gross
immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004, complainant seek for legal
advice from peitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel company. Respondent sent
Demand Letter and sometime in February 2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss
the possibility of filing complaint against the travel company because the latter failed to
settle the accounts. That after that said meeting, the respondent "held her arm and kissed
her on the cheek while embracing her very tightly."
The two met again to finalize the draft for the complaint and while on their way
home after the said meeting, the respondent suddenly stopped the car and things went out
of hand. Thus she decided to refer the case to another lawyer.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral which would
warrant the disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Held:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I x x x
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxxx
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.

The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of morality, not only upon
admission to the Bar but all throughtout their legal career as lawyers belong to an

exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the
legal profession and should adhere to the unwaveringly to the highest standard of
morality. The respondent admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on the lips as
evidenced as well of his asking for apology from complainant in his text message.
Regardless of the fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the respondent immediately
asked for forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of the respondent after texting him.
Thus the Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible which will
warrant disbarment or suspension. But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more
prudent and cautious.