PIATT vs ABORDO

FACTS: On February 19, 1932, Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, accepted the offer of two
individuals to sell him a quantity of opium, a prohibited drug, and agreed to pay P1.50 per tin for the opium. On
the afternoon of the same day, Abordo was picked up at the corner of Taft Avenue extension and Vito Cruz in the
City of Manila, by one of the individuals who had made him the opium proposition, and was taken to Rizal
Avenue Extension outside of the city limits where they found a number of persons awaiting them in an
automobile. A can was disclosed to Abordo as containing opium, and believing that it was opium, he delivered to
one Cabrales the amount of P600 in payment of the stuff. The can was loaded in the automobile which brought
Abordo to the scene of the delivery, but in returning to Manila another automobile overtook them and the parties
riding therein, pretending to be constabulary soldiers, told Abordo to stop. Instead Abordo drew his revolver and
commanding the driver of the car to turn into Calle Vito Cruz was able to evade his pursuers and to arrive safely
at his home in Pasay. Once in his home Abordo examined the contents of the can and found it to contain fake
opium and sand. Thereupon Abordo reported to the Luneta Police Station of Manila that he had been robbed of
P600. Two individuals were later arrested, charged with the crime of estafa, and convicted.

Abordo admits that he entered into the transaction detailed above, adding that "he is sincerely sorry for it and
vows not to repeat". His defense is that "there being no evidence in the record establishing the relationship of
attorney and client between the respondent and the malefactors", and "the act complained of not having been
committed in the exercise of his profession of attorney-at-law", the acts he committed could not affect his status
as attorney-at-law and could not, therefore, constitute a ground for disciplinary action.

ISSUE: Is Atty. Abordo guilty of Misconduct?

Ruling: An attorney who agreed to purchase opium, a prohibited drug, but was duped in a fake opium deal, found
guilty of non-professional misconduct so reprehensible as to warrant suspension from the practice of law for a
period of one year. It will be recalled that Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, attempted to engage
in an opium deal in direct contravention of the criminal law of the Philippine Islands. The Solicitor-General
submits that the respondent should be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of similar conduct in the future
will be dealt with more severely. It is the order of the court that the respondent Perfecto Abordo be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one year to begin on September 1, 1933.

Castillo Vda. De Mijares vs Villaluz

FACTS: Complainant is the Presiding Judge of Branch 108 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, while
respondent former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime Commission (PACC)
headed by Vice-President Joseph E. Estrada. Widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares,
complainant commenced Special Proceeding No. 90-54650 and therein obtained a decree declaring the said
Primitivo Mijares presumptively dead, after an absence of sixteen (16) years. Complainant narrated that on
January 7, 1994, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, then Presiding
Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona, Cavite and now Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City. Their marriage was the culmination of a long engagement. They met sometime in 1977, when
respondent, as Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, Metro Manila, was trying a murder case
involving the death of a son of Judge Mijares. Since then, respondent became a close family friend of complainant
(TSN, p. 14; April 10, 1996). After the wedding, they received their guests at a German restaurant in Makati.
With the reception over, the newlywed(s) resumed their usual work and activities. At 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon
of the same day, respondent fetched complainant from her house in Project 8, Quezon City, and reached the
condominium unit of respondent two hours later at which time, she answered the phone. At the other end of the
line was a woman offending her with insulting remarks. Consternated, complainant confronted respondent on the
identity of such caller but respondent simply remarked "it would have been just a call at the wrong number". What
followed was a heated exchange of harsh words, one word led to another, to a point when respondent called
complainant a "nagger", saying "Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang gusto ko sa babae, yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto
ko". Get that marriage contract and have it burned." Such unbearable utterances of respondent left complainant
no choice but to leave in haste the place of their would-be honeymoon. Since then, the complainant and respondent
have been living separately because as complainant rationalized, contrary to her expectation respondent never got
in touch with her and did not even bother to apologize for what happened (TSN, p. 13, April 10, 1996.

Several months after that fateful encounter of January 7, 1994, in a Bible Study session, the complainant learned
from Manila RTC Judge Ramon Makasiar, a member of the Bible Group, that he (Judge Makasiar) solemnized
the marriage between former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz and a certain Lydia Geraldez. Infuriated and impelled by
the disheartening news, complainant lost no time in gathering evidence against respondent, such that, on June 6,
1995 she filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against him (Exh. "A").Respondent gave a different version.
According to him, what he inked with the complainant on January 7, 1994 was merely but a "sham marriage". He
explained that he agreed as, in fact, he voluntarily signed the Marriage Contract marked Exh. "B", in an effort to
help Judge Mijares in the administrative case for immorality filed against her by her Legal Researcher, Atty.
Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr., sometime in 1993.

ISSSUE: W/N respondent is guilty of immoral conduct?

RULING: YES. After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds itself in full accord with the findings and
recommendation of Justice Purisima. Herein respondent is undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. He
himself asserts that at the time of his marriage to herein complainant, the decision of the court annulling his
marriage to his first wife, Librada Peña, had not yet attained finality. Worse, four months after his marriage to
petitioner, respondent married another woman, Lydia Geraldez, in Cavite, after making a false statement in his
application for marriage license that his previous marriage had been annulled. Respondent’s subterfuge that his
marriage to petitioner was just a “sham” marriage will not justify his actuations. The commission of grossly
immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.

Feliciano vs Bautista-Lozada

FACTS: On December 13, 2005, the Court en banc promulgated a Resolution in A.C. No. 6656 entitled “Bobie
Rose V. Frias vs. Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada”3 suspending Atty. Lozada for violation of Rules 15.03 and
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 - ALVIN S. FELICIANO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA, Respondents.
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
On May 4, 2006, the Court denied with finality Atty. Lozada's motion for reconsideration.
However, on June 5, 2007, in an action for injunction with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction docketed as Civil Case no. 101-V-07 entitled “Edilberto Lozada, et.al. vs.
Alvin S. Feliciano, et al.,” where complainant was one of the respondents, complainant lamented that Atty. Lozada
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff and her husband, Edilberto Lozada, and actively participated in the
proceedings of the case before Branch 75 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City. To prove his allegation,
complainant submitted certified true copies of the minutes of the hearings, dated June 12, 2007, July 3, 2007 and
July 6, 2007, wherein Atty. Lozada signed her name as one of the counsels,6 as well as the transcript of
stenographic notes showing that Atty. Lozada conducted direct examination and cross-examination of the
witnesses during the trial proceedings. Complainant argued that the act of Atty. Lozada in appearing as counsel
while still suspended from the practice of law constitutes willfull disobedience to the resolutions of the Court
which suspended her from the practice of law for two (2) years.
On September 12, 2007, the Court resolved to require Atty. Lozada to comment on the complaint against him. In
her Comment9 dated November 19, 2007, Atty. Lozada explained that she was forced by circumstances and her
desire to defend the rights of her husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute. She claimed that she believed in
good faith that her appearance as wife of Edilberto Lozada is not within the prohibition to practice law,
considering that she is defending her husband and not a client. She insisted that her husband is a victim of grave
injustice, and his reputation and honor are at stake; thus, she has no choice but to give him legal assistance. On
January 30, 2008, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report and recommendation.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In its Report and Recommendation12 dated March 9, 2009, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Lozada guilty of violating Rule 1.01 & 1.02, Rule 18.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the terms of her suspension from the practice of law as imposed by the Court.
Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended the disbarment of Atty. Lozada. On May 14, 2011, however, the IBP-Board
of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD
such that it recommended instead that Atty. Lozada be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. LOZADA is guity for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority?

RULING: YES. We adopt the ruling of the IBP-Board of Governors with modification. Indeed, this Court has the
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this Court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice
of law, as in the instant case, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of
legal knowledge within the period of suspension. irtualSuffice it to say that practice of law embraces "any activity,
in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It
includes "[performing] acts which are characteristics of the [legal] profession" or "[rendering any kind of] service
[which] requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”. Atty. Lozada's defense of good faith fails to
convince. She knew very well that at the time she represented her husband, she is still serving her two (2)-year
suspension order. Yet, she failed to inform the court about it. Neither did she seek any clearance or clarification
from the Court if she can represent her husband. While we understand her devotion and desire to defend her
husband whom she believed has suffered grave injustice, Atty. Lozada should not forget that she is first and
foremost, an officer of the court who is bound to obey the lawful order of the Court. Disbarment of lawyers is a
proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the
nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring
lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its
preservative principle. The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe
punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming the errant lawyer is possible.