EMMA C. DANTES vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G.

DANTES
Facts:
Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G.
Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics
and law. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one
after the other, and had illegitimate children with them.
From the time respondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular
support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work abroad to
provide for their childrens needs. Complainant pointed out that these acts of
respondent constitute a violation of his lawyers oath and his moral and legal
obligation to be a role model to the community.
IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the
practice of law.
Held:
Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three
ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public
image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a fourth:
to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two
different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes
grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Sufficiently
established respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality.
Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set
for members of the law profession. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED
and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

DIANA DE GUZMAN vs. ATTY. LOURDES DE DIOS

Facts:
Diana De Guzman filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. De Dios for
representing conflicting interests. Complainant averred that she engaged the services
of Atty. De Dios in 1995 as counsel in order to form a hotel and restaurant
corporation. With the assistance of respondent, said corporation was registered with
the SEC.
Respondent also represented complainant in one case involving a property of
the corporation. Respondent however averred that since the action involved a property
of the corporation, she represented complainant to protect the interests of the
corporation, she being its legal counsel.
Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by Ramon del
Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the
corporation completely. While respondent rose to be president of the corporation,
complainant lost all her lifes savings invested therein.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines finding that the acts of respondent were
not motivated by ill will as she acts in the best interest of her client SBHI (Suzuki
Beach Hotel Inc.) The IBP found that complainant failed to present convincing proof of
her attorney-client relationship with respondent other than the pleadings respondent
filed in the trial court where complainant was one of the parties.
ISSUE:
Whether there was attorney client relationship which may justify holding
respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests.
HELD:
Yes. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She
appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant. There was evidence of collusion between
the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board of directors now included
respondent as the president. The present situation shows a clear case of conflict of
interest of the respondent.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to
state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the
law, it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their
oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession.
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to
its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her
knowledge and discretion. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and

violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary

action. The acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath
as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
The Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6) months,
with warning that a repetition of the charges will be dealth with more severely.

CRISTINO G. CALUB vs. ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER

Facts:
A complaint for disbarment against respondent premised on grossly immoral
conduct for having raped his neighbor's wife.
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution
recommending that the disciplinary penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year be meted on respondent. The record discloses that the Court of
First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of
this administrative case.
Held:
Respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal
knowledge of his neighbor's wife without her consent in her very home.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in
honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.
The rape of his neighbor's wife constituted serious moral depravity even if his
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He is
not worthy to remain a member of the bar. The privilege to practice law is bestowed
upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally
important, morally.
"Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to maintain one's
good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity."
WHEREFORE, respondent Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from the practise of law.

RURAL BANK OF SILAY vs. ATTY. ERNESTO H. PILLA

Facts:
Atty. Pilla executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favour of Rural Bank of Silay over
a parcel of land in Negros Occidental, as an attorney in fact of the registered owners,
Pedro Torres and Oscar Granada together with the SPA which was purportedly
authorized by the owners to mortgage the land in favor of the Rural Bank.
Rural Bank released a loan in the amount of 91,427 Php in favor of the
respondent. Later, the Rural Bank found out that the Atty. Pilla was not authorized by
Oscar Granada to mortgage the land when he was joined as defendant for removal of
cloud on title with preliminary injunction and damages.
Oscar Granada specifically denied having executed an SPA to respondent to
support the said loan. The trial court decided against the Atty. Pilla, and held that the
SPA was forged and falsified because the spouses Granada have not signed the same.
The respondent did not appeal from the said judgment. The foregoing acts of the
respondent in presenting to the complainant Bank a forged and falsified Power of
Attorney for the purpose of obtaining a loan is a betrayal of his oath as a lawyer to do
falsehood to no man and by his conduct herein has forfeited his right to continue
further in the practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct.

Held:
Since Atty. Pilla actually benefited from the falsified document, he is presumed
to have a hand in the falsification of the same. Respondent miserably failed to rebut
this presumption with his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the
forgery. The Court cannot give credence to respondents negative assertion that he did
not know that the special power of attorney issued in his favor was falsified.
As a lawyer, respondent knows or ought to know that parties to a public document
must personally appear before the notary public to attest that the same is their own

free act and deed. In utter disregard of this requirement, Atty. Pilla cause the SPA to
be notarized without the parties appearing before the notary public.
Atty. Pilla acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the Code of Professional
Responsibility particularly Rule 1.01 which provides:
a Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains
to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a
good precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of
the bar.
Recommendation of the IBP that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) years is approved.

ARACELI S. DE JESUS vs. ATTY. CONSUELO COLLADO

Facts:
Araceli De Jesus charged Consuelo Collado, Court Attorney IV in the Office of
the Clerk of Court (Third Division), Supreme Court, with committing "the deceitful act
of issuing nine (9) bouncing checks manifesting conduct unbecoming of a public
servant and member of the Bar."
Held:
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has as yet been
obtained against respondent Collado. Supreme Court do not, however, believe that
conviction of the criminal charges raised against her is essential, so far as either the
administrative or civil service case or the disbarment charge against her is concerned.
Issuance of checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes
serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar. The Court has also held
that a member of the Bar must observe honesty and fairness even in private
transactions and that failure to do so may be a ground for disciplinary action against
the lawyer.
Atty. Collado was suspended for one (1) year.

PRISCILLA ORBE vs. ATTY. HENRY ADAZA

Facts:
Attorney Adaza went to Priscilla Orbe to borrow P60k. Orbe loaned Adaza the
said amount. As security, Adaza issued Orbe two checks to cover the loan plus
interest. The checks however bounced. Subsequently, because of Adazas failure to pay

despite notices and demand from Orbe, the latter filed a complaint for grave
misconduct against Adaza.
Orbe alleged that Adaza is unfit to be a member of the bar. Eventually, the case
was referred to the respective Integrated Bar of Philippines chapter. Despite notices,
Adaza failed to appear in any of the proceedings. The IBP chapter then recommended
Adazas suspension for one year.
Held:
Supreme Court adopted the recommendation.
A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an
attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office. The word "conduct" used
in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of
the lawyers professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although not
connected with his professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
Respondents issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to
comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years is appalling and hardly deserves
compassion from the Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Henry M. Adaza is found guilty of gross misconduct, and he
is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR.

MARILOU SEBASTIAN vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS

Facts:
Marilou Sebastian alleged that she was referred to Atty. Calis who promised to
process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of
150k.
When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former
that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer,
employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished
documents to support her assumed identity. Realizing that she will be travelling with
spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money, however she
was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has been
engaged in the business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be
refunded if something goes wrong.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with
the others, were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious
travel documents; complainant was deported back to the Philippines.
Held:
Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP that respondent is
guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa and
travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen;
that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees
and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material gain.
Atty. Dorotheo Calis was disbarred.

BAN HUA U. FLORES vs. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

Facts:
The complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty. Chua, a practicing lawyer
and a notary public, for various offenses amounting to malpractice, gross misconduct,
violation of his lawyers oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the
provisions of the laws of the Philippines, to wit: (a) Fraud through falsification and
forgery of public document; (b) foisting falsehood and fabricated public document to
molest and harass parties; and (c) libel, misrepresentation and unlawful
advertisement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the charges against Atty. Chua sufficient to warrant disciplinary
action against him.
HELD:

Yes. Supreme Court agreed with the Investigating Commissioner in his findings of
facts and conclusion of culpability, and even in his own lament that the recommended
penalty would even seem light.
Indeed, the misconduct of respondent, which this case has unfolded, is grave and
serious that brings dishonor to the legal profession.
In respondents notarization of a forged deed of sale, we see not just an act of
generosity lavishly extended. We see his active role to perpetuate a fraud, a deceitful
act to prejudice a party.
It must be stressed that under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, a notary public,
like herein respondent, shall certify that the person acknowledging or
document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The purpose of the
requirement of personal appearance by the acknowledging party before the notary public
is to enable the latter to verify the genuineness of the signature of the former.
In Maligsa v. Cabanting, we emphatically pronounced:
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe
to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public
policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the
legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put,
such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. By his effrontery of
notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a mockery of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this
end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might
lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ENRIQUE S. CHUA guilty
of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law.

ROMANA R. MALIGSA vs. ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING

Facts:
Maligsa filed a complaint against Atty. Cabanting for disbarment with conduct
unbecoming a lawyer for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim. On the basis of the
complaint and the supporting documents, it found out sufficient legal basis for
disciplinary action against respondent for making it appear in the Acknowledgment of
the Deed of Quitclaim in question that the affiant therein signed the document and

acknowledged the contents thereof before him as Notary Public on 5 May 1992 when
in truth and in fact the affiant did not and could not have done so.
Held:
It would have been physically and legally impossible for the affiant Irene Maligsa
to have executed the alleged Deed of Quitclaim on 5 May 1992 and to have personally
subscribed to its authenticity and validity before respondent notary public on the
same date, affiant having died on 21 April 1992. Also, it behooves respondent as a
notary public to require the personal appearance of the person executing a document
to enable the former to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end
a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen
in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the legal profession.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one
making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. As a lawyer
commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred
duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy
and impressed with public interest.
By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a
mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.
ATTY. CABANTING was DISBARRED.