JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C.

CRUZ
(2007)
The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the existing laws, o keep
abreast with legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence, and
be conversantwith basic legal principles.
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal
Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released
due to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the Municipal Engineers
office, claiming that the building impedes the airspace of their property which is
adjacent to the Dulalias property. Juan Dulalia (Juan) filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz) for immoral conduct.
Juan also claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good
faith,claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time
was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family Code provides
that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on
August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does
not lie, as ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it
the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with
legaldevelopments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they

beconversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such
duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations
as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing
mistakes.
The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01
and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the
practice of law for one year.

SALES DIGEST | Kiong Fabian

3. Other relatively disqualifiedb. Attorneysiv. PAULINO VALENCIA vs. ATTY.
ARSENIO FERCABANTINGFACTS:
In 1933, complainant Paulino Valencia and hiswife allegedly bought a parcel of land, where
they builttheir house, from a certain Serapia Raymundo, an heirof Pedro Raymundo the original
owner. However, theyfailed to register the sale or secure a transfercertificate of title in their
names. A conference washeld in the house of Atty. Eduardo Jovellanos to settlethe
land dispute between Serapia and the Valenciaspouses. Serapia was willing to relinquish
ownership if the Valencias could show documents evidencingownership. Paulino exhibited a
deed of sale written inthe Ilocano dialect. However, Serapia claimed that thedeed
covered a different property. Serapia, assistedby Atty. Arsenio Fer. Cabanting, filed a
complaintagainst Paulino for the recovery of possession withdamages. The Valencias
engaged the services of Atty.Dionisio Antiniw. Atty. Antiniw advised them to presenta
notarized deed of sale in lieu of the private documentwritten in Ilocano. For this purpose,
Paulino gave Atty.Antiniw an amount of P200.00 to pay the person whowould falsify the
signature of the alleged vendor. A"Compraventa Definitiva" as a result thereof. The Court
of First Instance of Pangasinan, rendered adecision in favor of Serapia. Paulino filed a
Petitionfor
Certiorari
with Preliminary Injunction before the CA.While the petition was pending, the TC issued an
orderof execution stating that "the decision in this case hasalready become final and
executory".On March 20, 1973, Serapia sold 40 square meters of the litigated lot to
Atty. Jovellanos and the remainingportion she sold to her counsel, Atty. Arsenio
Fer.Cabanting, on April 25, 1973. Paulino filed adisbarment proceeding against Atty. Cabanting
on theground that said counsel allegedly violated Article1491 of the New Civil Code as well as
Article II of theCanons of Professional Ethics, prohibiting the purchaseof property under
litigation by a counsel. The appellatecourt dismissed the petition of Paulino.Constancia
Valencia, daughter of Paulino, also filed adisbarment proceeding against Atty. Dionisio
Antiniwfor his participation in the forgery and its subsequentintroduction as evidence for his
client; and also,against Attys. Eduardo Jovellanos and ArsenioCabanting for purchasing a
litigated property allegedlyin violation of Article 1491 of the New Civil Code; andagainst the
three lawyers, for allegedly rigging thecase against her parents.
ISSUES:(issue 1 lang ang connected pero iapil nlng nakoang uban basig
pangutaon)

I . W h e t h e r o r n o t A t t y. C a b a n t i n g p u r c h a s e
d the subject property in violation of Art. 1491 of theNew Civil
Code.I I . W h e t h e r
o r
n o t
A t t y s .
A n t i n i w
a n
d Jovellanos are guilty of malpractice in falsifyingnotarial documents.
III.
Whether or not the three lawyers connivedin rigging the case against spouses Valencia.
HELD:
Under Article 1491 of the New Civil Code: The followingpersons cannot acquire by purchase,
even at a publicof judicial auction, either in person or through themediation of another: (5) . . .
this prohibition includesthe act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply tolawyers, with
respect to the property and rights whichmay be the object of any litigation in which they
maketake part by virtue of their profession. Public policyprohibits the transactions in view of the
fiduciaryrelationship involved. It is intended to curtail anyundue influence of the lawyer
upon his client. Greedmay get the better of the sentiments of loyalty
anddisinterestedness. Any violation of this prohibitionwould constitute malpractice and is a
ground forsuspension. Art. 1491, prohibiting the sale to thecounsel concerned, applies only
while the litigation ispending.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 thingis said to be in litigation not only if there is somecontest or litigation over
it in court, but also from themoment that it becomes subject to the judicial actionof
the judge. Logic indicates, in
certiorari
proceedings,that the appellate court may either grant or dismissthe petition. Hence, it is
not safe to conclude, forpurposes under Article 1491 that the litigation hasterminated when
the judgment of the trial courtbecome final while a
certiorari
connected therewith isstill in progress. Thus, purchase of the property byAtty. Cabanting in this
case constitutes malpractice inviolation of Art. 1491 and the Canons of ProfessionalEthics.
Clearly, this malpractice is a ground forsuspension. The sale in favor of Atty. Jovellanos
doesnot constitute malpractice. There was no attorney-client relationship between
Serapia and Atty. Jovellanos, considering that the latter did not take partas her counsel.
The transaction is not covered by Art.1491 nor by the Canons adverted to.IIIt is asserted
by Paulino that Atty. Antiniw asked forand received the sum of P200.00 in consideration of
hisexecuting the document "Compraventa Definitiva". This charge, Atty. Antiniw simply
denied. It is settled jurisprudence that affirmative testimony is givengreater weight
than negative testimony. When anindividual's integrity is challenged by evidence, it is
notenough that he deny the charges against him; he mustmeet the issue and overcome the
evidence for therelator and show proofs that he still maintains thehighest degree of morality
and integrity which at alltime is expected of him. There is a clear preponderantevidence that
Atty.

In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]
16AUG
[Per Curiam]

FACTS:
[T]he Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the earnest
recommendation on the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in
Administrative Case No. 526 of the Court, and consistently with the views and
counsel received from its [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the
overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar that (the)
Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as
possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The
petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of
the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and
practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations.
ISSUES:
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?
HELD:
YES. On all issues.
RATIO:
[T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of
its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, to promulgate rules
concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law.
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the
mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar
Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is perfectly constitutional and
legally unobjectionable, within the context of contemporary conditions in the
Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility fully and effectively.
[T]he Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, ordained the integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January
16, 1973.