CANON 1 ADDITIONAL CASES
Yu v. Atty. Dela Cruz
FACTS:
 Paulina Yu was represented by Atty. Dela Cruz in several cases wherein
respondent received various amounts as acceptance fees.
 During their lawyer-client relationship. Dela Cruz borrowed pieces of
jewelry worth 135k from Yu and pledged them with the Citystate Savings
Bank for P29,945.
o Respondent appropriated the money from the pledge for his
personal use.
 Respondent presented a check to Yu to facilitate the redemption of the
jewelry. However, the check was dishonored for the reason “account
closed.”
 Yu demanded for the refund of the acceptance fees Dela Cruz received
prior to the abandonment of the cases, and of the value of the jewelry.
Respondent was not able to pay.
 For respondent’s failure to heed the demands, Yu filed a criminal case
against him for violating BP 22.
o A complaint for disbarment was also filed with the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline.
o Respondent failed to file his answer. He also failed to appear at
hearing.
 The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be
disbarred for violating the CPR, particularly Rule 1.01 stating that “a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
conduct.”
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated the CPR.
HELD: YES.
 The respondent’s failure or refusal to participate in the proceedings did
not hinder the Court from determining his liability and imposing an
appropriate sanction.
 The act of borrowing the jewelry was violative of Rule 16.04. He abused
the trust and confidence in him by his client.
 Despite knowledge that the check he issued was dishonored, Dela Cruz
did not take steps to remedy the situation.
o His unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the jewelry
and his act of issuing a worthless check were in violation of the
CPR and the lawyer’s oath.
 Dela Cruz was suspended for 3 years.
Tamaray v. Atty. Daquis
FACTS:
 Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray filed a complaint with the IBP against Atty.
Deborah Daquis for allegedly forging her signature on a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage. Daquis also allegedly signed the
petition as “counsel for the petitioner.”
o Tamaray alleged that Daquis was not her counsel, but that of her
husband Leomarte Tamaray.
 Daquis was introduced to Tamaray as her husband’s lawyer. Leomarte
told Tamaray that he introduced Daquis to her because he wanted to
annul their marriage. Tamaray was shocked and just cried. Daquis tried
to conviced Tamaray to not oppose the annulment.
 Tamaray asked Daquis to give her a copy of the petition but the latter
refused.
o Tamaray obtained a copy from the RTC and was surprised to
see her signature.
 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of
the complaint because Tamaray failed to prove her allegations.
 The IBP Board of Governors approved the Commission’s findings.
ISSUE: W/N Daquis is administratively liable.
HELD: YES.
 Daquis violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR by pretending to be Tamaray’s
counsel. She also violated the Lawyer’s Oath.
 Respondent merely denied the allegations against her and failed to rebut
the same.
o She argues that she was Tamaray’s counsel but did not explain
how she was referred to the latter or how they were introduced.
 Daquis also made it so that Tamaray was the petitioner for the nullity of
her marriage with Leomarte so that he wouldn’t have to admit entering
into a bigamous marriage for which he may be criminally liable.
 When respondent filed the Petition as counsel for complainant when the
truth was otherwise, she committed a falsehood against the trial court
and complainant.
 Daquis was disbarred.
Monares v. Munoz
FACTS:
 Atty. Monares was the plaintiff in a civil case filed against Atty. Munoz,
alleging that Munoz represented his brother Ludolfo in the said case
during regular government hours while employed as Provincial Legal
Officer of Albay.
 Atty. Olaybal as Chairman of ALECO’s Board of Directors enaged Atty.
Munoz as counsel.
o He averred that Munoz did not inform them that he was
employed as Provincial Legal Officer.
o He also stated that after the Board was deactivated, Munoz
continued to be a counsel of the National Electrification
Administration team which took over the management of
ALECO.
o He also alleged that Munoz collected fees more than what was
agreed upon in their retainer agreement.
 Constante claimed that Munoz filed 10 cases against his employer  Atty. Bautista issued a Memorandum regarding GSIS’ right to retain
Sunwest on Ludolfo’s behalf while the latter was serving as Provincial ownership of the housing units and to collect their purchase price thru
Legal Officer. monthly salary deductions from the petitioners.
 Complainants pray that Munoz be disbarred for unlawfully engaging in  The petitioners claimed that the allowance and implementation of the
private practice. collection on arrears on cancelled housing loans are tantamount to
 Munoz claimed that he requested authority to continue his private double recovery for the GSIS.
practice from Governor Al Francis Bichara. He submitted the same to  Atty. Bautista gave his legal opinion as former Chief Legal Counsel of the
Rafael Alunan, Secretary of the DILG. GSIS, which provided for the collection of arrearages by the GSIS from
o Acting Sec. Aguirre approved the request on the ground that no the petitioners because of its subrogation of all the rights of SLRRDC in
government time shall be utilized in connection to such request, the Deed of Absolute Sale.
and that no conflict of interest shall arise.  Di ko na maintindihan haha sorry :D
 The IBP Commissioner recommended that Munoz violated Rule 1.01 of
the CPR and that he should be suspended from practice for 4 years.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated the CPR.
HELD: YES.
 Acting Sec. Aguirre’s grant of authority cannot have been perpetual. The
grant of authority fro Governor Bichara was also insufficient.
 Under the Revised Civil Service Rules, “the power to grant authority to
engage in the practice of one’s profession to officers and employees in
the public service lies with the head of the department.”
o Munoz should have secured the proper authority from the DILG
Sec. not only for his 1st term, but also for his 2nd and 3rd.
o His failure to do so rendered him liable for unauthorized practice
of his profession and violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
 Suspended for 3 years.

Munar et, al. v. Bautista

FACTS:
 Petitioners were public school teachers and members of the GSIS.
 They alleged that marketing representatives of the GSIS and the San
Lorenzo Ruiz Realty and Dev. Corp. (SLRRDC) visited public schools in
their province and enticed the teachers to avail of SLRRDC’s housing
units.
o They claimed that they were induced to sign blank forms to
supposedly reserve housing units, but were not given the
opportunity to review its contents to to the representatives’
excuse of being in a hurry.
 None of the representatives returned as promised, and petitioners were
aghast that their salaries were deducted monthly for an alleged housing
loan from the GSIS. They also claimed that their signatures on the
Authority to Deduct were forged.
 The GSIS eventually agreed to stop the salary deductions, however the
petitioners still received notices from the GSIS that they still remain liable
for the interests of the principal amount of the housing loan.