University

 of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  

Legal  Profession                                          
Joselano Guevarra v. Emmanuel Eala

Joselano Guevarra filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala for grossly
immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of lawyer’s oath.

The complainant Guevarra first met the respondent when his soon-to-be-wife Irene Moje introduced
the respondent as her friend and was married to Marianne Tantoco whom the respondent had three
children.

After their marriage on October 2000, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving cellphone
calls as well as messages from the respondent such as “I love you”, “I miss you” or “Meet you at Megamall”.

Irene went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day. Complainant saw
Irene and the respondent together on two occasions.

On April 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday where he saw the respondent
celebrating with Irene’s family and friends. After that incident, Irene left their conjugal home.

In their master bedroom, complainant found a social card dated October 7, 2000 the day of his
wedding to Irene. The letter showed how much the respondent loved Irene with its most famous line
“I love you Forever… As long as I’m living my tweetie you’ll be!”

Respondent Atty. Noli Eala denied flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene and that their
relationship was low profile and known only to immediate members of their respective families
and he was still known to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco.

Complainant attached the Birth Certificate of the daughter of Irene while the respondent’s name was
written as the father of Samantha Irene Louise Moje born on February 14, 2002.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Eala was guilty of grossly immoral conduct for having an illicit affair
with the complainant’s wife.

Ruling: Yes. The published photo taken being together with’ the respondent and Irene in the
Manilas Standard does not sufficiently prove of their adulterous relationship.

However, the statement of the respondent that his low-profile relationship with Irene is an
admission that there is indeed a “special relationship” between them. Also, the Birth Certificate
sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship.

There is no reason that Irene would lie or misrepresent the paternity of the child. Respondent has
not categorically denied that he is the father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.

Respondent denial is a negative pregnant which held that qualifying circumstances alone are denied
where the fact itself is admitted.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They may proceed independently
of civil and criminal cases. Preponderant evidence is all that required.

  1  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

His relationship with Irene is under Section 27 of the Revised Rules of Court. The quoted rule
provides ground for disbarment or suspension uses the phase “grossly immoral conduct” and not
“under scandalous circumstances”.

Thus, Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct in violation of
Cannon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Victoria Belo-Henares vs Atty. Roberto Guevarra

Complainant Vicky Belo-Henares filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Roberto Guevarra
for alleged violations of Rules 1.01, and 1.02, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 8.01 of Canon 8;
Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group engaged
in cosmetic surgery. Respondent is the lawyer of Ms. Josefina Norcio who filed a criminal case
against Belo for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005 causing
infection and making her ill in 2009.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts in Facebook insulting and verbally abusing the
complainant. His posts such as: Quack Doctor Becky Belo.. Kiss my client’s ass. Reyna ng Kaplastikan,
Reyna ng Kapalpakan.

Respondent also threatened the complainant with criminal conviction without factual basis and
without proof. Also, respondent’s posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of women.

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public
hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close Belo Medical Group and all its clinic, as well as to extort
the amount of 200 Million from the complainant as evident from his demand letter as dated on
August 26, 2009, complainant lodge the instant complaint for disbarment against the respondent.

Respondent, however, claimed that complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed
right to privacy as posts were private remarks meant to be shared only within his circle of friends.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable based on allegations of
the verified complaint.

Held: Yes. The respondent never denied the posts but argued that they were ‘private remarks’ on
his private Facebook account. However, the respondent failed to offer evidence that he utilized any
of the privacy tools of Facebook that he restricted its privacy to select few.

Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. Calling a complainant, a “quack doctor”, Reyna
ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Payola, and Reyna ng Kapalpakan was made with malice tending insult and
tarnish the reputation of the complainant and the Belo Medical Group.

  2  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

He even threatened the complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa which is in
contrary to one’s obligation “to act with justice”.

Respondent’s inappropriate and obscene language and his act of publicly insulting and undermining
the reputation of complainant through FB violate the Rule 7.03, 8.01. and 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent disregarded that a lawyer is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in
public or private life. The complainant is a public figure or a celebrity does not justify respondent’s
disrespectful language.

Therefore, Atty. Roberto Guevarra is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one year.

Patricia Figueroa vs Simeon Barranco Jr.

Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco be denied the admission to the legal profession.
Respondent Simeon Barranco had passed the 1970 bar examinations on the fourth attempt.

Complainant and the respondents had been sweethearts and that a child out of wedlock was born.
Complainant also alleged that respondent first promised that he would marry her after he passed the
bar; he also made more than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Their relationship ended in 1971, when
she learned that the respondent married another woman.

In 1974, 1979, and 1980 the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
respondent.

In 1988, respondent repeated his request to allow him to take his oath citing that his election as
member of the Sangguniang Bayan and his active civic participation and good standing in the
community as well as the length of time the case has been pending.

The same year the court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable period of time and to allow Barranco to take the lawyer’s oath upon the payment of
the required fees.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

Held: Yes. Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer’s oath in 1971 because of gross
immorality complaint against him.

His engaging in premarital sexual relations with the complainant and promise to marry suggests a
doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.

The court has held to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral but grossly immoral.

Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual.
She continued to be respondent’s girlfriend even after she had given birth to a son in 1964 until

  3  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

1971, all these years of intimate relations refute the allegations that she was forced to have sexual
congress with him.

The 26 years that respondent has prevented from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment if
his past indiscretions are ignoble. Respondent who is now 62 years old should be allowed to take
lawyer’s oath.

Annabelle Pomperada v Benjamin Jochico

Respondent Benjamin Jochico a Bar passer in 1981 was disallowed by the Court to join the mass
oathtaking on May 4, 1982 because of written formal complaint filed by complainant, Annabelle
Pomperada charging him with the grossly immoral conduct and actuations that make him unfit
become a member of the Philippine Bar.

In 1979, the complainant had signed a marriage contract without the presence of the judge because
the respondent said that it was not necessary for the judge knew both of them personally. The
respondent later gave a complainant a marriage contract which appeared to have signed already by
Judge Garcia.

However, the marriage contract was not registered in the Local Civil Registrar’s Office and the
Judge denied having signed the marriage contract.

From 1972-1976, the respondent filed income tax returns indicating that Nonita Martelino Ureta as
his spouse. Then in 1979 and 1980 he indicated that the complainant as his spouse.

Respondent denied the allegations and that the complainant was aware that the marriage was totally
a game concocted during the celebration of complainant’s birthday. Also, the marriage contract
signed by Judge Garcia can be considered as a mere scrap of paper as complainant was fully aware
of.

Chief Attorney submitted Memoradum Report.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and should be disallowed
to take the oath as member of the Bar.

Held: Yes. Whether or not the marriage was a joke as respondent’s claim, it does not speak well of
respondent’s moral values. Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, as a basic social
institution, which publicly cherishes and protects.

Respondent’s testimony was a clear admission of illicit liaison with the complainant for nine years,
and before that with another woman, and of filing of false income tax returns.

Those actuations do not conform to the standards of honesty, decency, and moral conduct required
of an aspiring member of the legal profession.

  4  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

Aquilina Bitangcor v Rodolfo Tan

Aquilina Bitangcor filed two administrative complaints against the respondent Rodolfo Tan, a bar
passer in 1971, charge with immorality with prayer to prevent him from taking the lawyer’s oath.

In November 1966, complainant filed a rape case against the respondent in Pasay. While it was
being heard, the respondent wooed complainant a promise to marry her, hence the rape case was
dismissed.

Although did not fulfill his promise, she continues their relationship. A few years after the
complainant gave birth to a child Imelda, still the respondent refused to marry her and have the
child minimal amounts of P20, P25, and P50 after which he refused to provide for the child.

In administrative case No. 539-SBC, Josefina Peredo alleges that respondent courted petitioner
Peredo. Sometime in 1971, respondent seduced, lured, coerced, and employed many tactics on her
to satisfy his lust. Respondent promised to marry her after the 1971 bar examinations.

They cohabited in 1971 to 1972, a furnished apartment in Manila.

Respondent denied the Bitangcor’s complaint and that he cannot be the father of her child. He also
denied that he cohabited with Peredo and that he had never done any immoral or illegal acts towards
the complainant Peredo.

Bitangcor filed a motion to withdraw and to dismiss the case because of a settlement. She produced
a duplicate copy of unilateral agreement dated December 1972 showing the P6000 litigation
expenses to be reimbursed to her by Rodolfo Tan.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

Held: Yes. From all the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the respondent had fallen
short of the requisite on morality for admission to the Bar (Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court). He
violated the honor of, not one, but two women.

Ten years have gone by since the 1971 Bar examinations which qualified respondent to be a lawyer,
and nine years since he was denied the privilege to practice his profession. There appears to be no
other indiscretion attributed to him in the meanwhile.

In the same way, SC held that the respondent herein has sufficiently suffered for his immoral conduct.

Respondent is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

  5  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

FRANCISCO LORENZANA, Complainant, versus ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO,

Respondent.

Complainant Francisco Lorenzana charges Atty. Cesar Fajardo with violation of the Civil Service
Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and seeks his disbarment from the
practice of law profession.

In May 2002, complainant alleged that respondent while being employed as Legal Officer V at the
Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his retirement on May 15, 2002, was a member of People’s
Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of QC, receiving monthly honorarium of P4K. He was also a
member of Lupong Tagapamayapa of Brgy. Novaliches Proper and receiving a monthly allowance or
honorarium.

Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in private practice of law receiving
acceptance fee ranging from P20K-P50K. The respondent lives in a house and lot owned by the
complainant’s family without paying any rental and refuses to leave the place.

In respondent’s defense, his membership in the PLEB was without fixed compensation. He received
only per diem allowed under Section 43 of RA 6975. His designation as a member of Lupong
Tagapamayapa is authorized under Section 406 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and
monthly allowance is allowed under Section 393.

Hence, there was no double compensation. He admitted having appeared as private counsel in
several cases. He emphasized that it was pro bono because his clients were his relatives and friends.
He denied that the lot was of complainant’s family.

IBP Commissioner Doreteo Aguila in his investigation confirmed that respondent’s appointment as
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Novaliches, while employed as legal officer of Manila Urban Settlements
Office is not unlawful. His appointment as member of PLEB, however, was not an exception to the
prohibition against dual employment.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Section 7 of Article IX-B of the Constitution for
holding two or more employment in the Government.

Held: YES. Respondent failed to establish that his duty in Manila Urban Settlement Office allowed
his appointment as PLEB member. Respondent in accepting such appointment transgressed the
Constitution, Administrative Code of 1987 and Local Government Code of 1991.

He also violated the Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that a “Lawyer shall
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND”.

Respondent should have asked permission from his chief as required by the Civil Service Rules that
his private practice of law must have a written permission from the head of the Department.

While IBP Board of Governors recommended a one month suspension, the SC held that by
engaging in illegal practice of law, violating the Constitution, the Attorney’s oath, and Code of

  6  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          
Professional Responsibility that the respondent is hereby SUSPENDED for six months, and
REPRIMANDED and WARNED that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES, respondent.

Complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Ronaldo S. Torres with

presentation of false testimony, failure to advise against the forgery of complainant’s signature in
purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his
oath as a lawyer and canons of legal and judicial ethics.

The complainant is one of the six children whose parents died but left several parcels of lands. The
respondent is married to one of the siblings of the complainant [Felicisima T. Torres].

The respondent took advantage of his relationship with the complainant and used his profession to
deprive them of what was lawfully due to them even if involved illegal, unlawful, or immoral acts.

The respondent (1) participated when his wife [Felicisima] and sister in law [Miriam] executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate wherein the two made it appear that they were the sole
heirs of the late spouses Julita and Vicente Ting. The lot was sold to Antel Holdings for more than 1
Million.

Also (2) he consented the forgery of complainant’s signature in purported Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement in March 1995 when the respondent knew that the complainant was in Italy.

He (3) made gross representation and offered false testimony that Marcelina and his wife were the
only children and legal heirs.

(4) He requested the full payment from the buyer [Mrs. Ong] and that the order of reconstitution
would be released within one month.

Respondent alleged that he believed in good faith that the Ting sisters had already agreed to dispose
the lots. Complainant’s signature was affixed was also done in good faith.

Respondent also believed that the complainant intended to harass him by bombarding him with
numerous lawsuit.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the said allegations by the complainant.

Held: Yes. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to
remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. His actuations violated the
Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1; Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10.

The respondent concealed that there were other compulsory heirs to the estate of the deceased. As a
brother in law, he knew of his wife’s siblings. Marcelina (sister-in-law) admitted that she signed the

  7  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

complainant’s name in the Extrajudicial Settlement Document. Instead of advising Marcelina to

secure written special power of attorney and against committing falsification, he presented that
document to the Registry of Deeds. He should advise his wife and sister-in-law from doing acts
contrary to the law.

The respondent also allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony in court and he
never corrected despite full knowledge that Marcelina has other siblings.

The respondent must have forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the court called upon to
assist in the administration. Respondent’s acts reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable
dishonor to the legal profession.

Atty. Rolando Torres is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath. He is
DISBARRED from the practice of law.

In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

Respondent Luis Tagorda, a practicing lawyer and a provincial board member of Isabela, admits that
in the previous general election he used a card written in Spanish and Ilocano advertising the legal
services that he offers.

Furthermore, he admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his
home municipality in Ilocano. In his letter, he stated that despite being elected as a member of
Provincial Board, he will exercise his legal profession and notary public.

He added that those people who had not contracted services of other lawyers for the registration of
land titles, he would be willing to handle the case in court and would charge only three pesos for
every registration.

Issues: Whether or not the respondent advertisements through card and letter violate the ethics of
legal profession.

Held: Yes. In 1919, the Philippine Bar Association amended Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure by Act no. 2828 which states that “The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers constitutes malpractice.”

Canons of Professional Ethics in Canons 27 and 28 provide that publication or circulation of

ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local customs, and sometimes of
convenience is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements

  8  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          
Or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional.

Code 28. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit except in rare case
where ties of blood... It is also disreputable to hunt up defects in titles in order to be employed or to
breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries in order to secure them as
clients.

The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by
himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional.

It is the court’s duty to condemn in no certain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by
lawyers.
1.   It is destructive to the honor of a great profession
2.   It lowers the standards of that profession
3.   It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
4.   It results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is ground for disbarment or suspension. However, as

mitigating circumstances the respondent was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, his youth and
inexperience mistake.

Atty. Luis B. Tagorda is hereby SUSPENDED for practice of law for the period of one month from
April 1, 1929.

Khan vs Simbillo.

This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement appeared in July 2005 in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE and the specialist contact
numbers were included.

Ma Theresa Espeleta, a staff of the Public Information Office of the SC called the published
telephone number and spoke to Mrs. Simbillo. The wife of Atty. Simbillo, claimed that her husband
specializes in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months,
provided that case will not involve separation of property or custody of children.

The fee would be P48,000. There were also advertisements published in Manila Bulletin and
Philippine Star.

Atty. Khan as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of
his legal services in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138 Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

Respondent argued that advertising and solicitation per se [are] not prohibited acts; that the
time has come to change our views about prohibition on advertising and solicitation.

  9  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

Also, that the court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising and that the rationale behind the
decades-old prohibition should be abandoned.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of
Court for his advertisements published in newspapers.

Held: YES. Rule 2.03 states that lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed to solicit
legal business.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.

It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture and law advocacy is not a capital
that necessarily yields profits.
The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration
of lawyers.

The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1.   A duty of public service which one may attain the highest eminence without making much
money
2.   A relation as an ‘office of the court’ to the administration of justice through sincerity,
integrity and reliability
3.   A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
4.   A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to
resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice

After the respondent’s repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, he advertised again his legal
services. Eight months after filing his answer, he advertised again his legal services in Buy & Sell
Free Ads newspaper. Ten months’ later he caused the same advertisement.

He also advertises himself as a self-styled “Annulment of Marriage Specialist”.

For solicitation to be proper, the use of simple signs stating the name, or names of lawyers, the office,
the residence address and fields of practice as well as advisement in legal periodicals bearing the same
brief data are permissible. Such data must not be misleading and may include only statement of
lawyer’s name, his professional associates, legal authorship and with written consent the names of his
clients regularly represented.

Use of calling cards, publication in law lists is likewise allowable. A lawyer may not properly publish
his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society
program.

Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is found GUILTY and SUSPENDED for one year. Also, a STERNLY
WARNED that the repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.

  10  
University  of  Makati-­‐School  of  Law  
Legal  Profession                                          

ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE, Complainant, ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

Complainant Adegoke Plumpte filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Socrates
Rivera for absconding with money entrusted to him and soliciting money to bribe a judge.
In March 2014, complainant called the respondent to asked for help in his application for a
work permit from the Bureau of Immigration. Complainant paid P10K as professional fee. They met
again and complainant give another P10K together with his passport.
On the third time that they met respondent asked again for another P10K but complainant
refused since they agreed only on the amount of P20K.
Respondent asked for P8K allegedly for complainant’s other case. Respondent explained that the
P5K be given to the Las Pinas judge while P3k for the processing of motion for reconsideration.
However, after giving the money complainant never received any updates on the status of
his work permit and pending court cases.
Complainant was able to track down the respondent’s whereabouts, respondent returned the
passport but not the P28,000.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rivera absconded the money entrusted by the complainant

Held: Yes. Respondent’s failure to comment on the complaint gives credence to the complainant’s
allegations. It manifests his tacit admission.

Respondent’s absconding with the money entrusted to him violates the Canons of Code of
Professional Responsibility such as Canon 1, 7, 16, 17 and 18.

Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity, competence and diligence. He acted in
reprehensible manner towards the complainant. Respondent’s act of soliciting money to bribe a
judge served to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won
by the party with the deepest pockets.

This gross disrespect of the judicial system betrays the lack of integrity to his character.
Thus, respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
years. He is ORDERED to return the amount of P28,000 with 6% interest per annum. He is
likewise DIRECTED to submit this court proof of payment within 10 days from payment.

  11