The PRACTICE OF LAW

People vs Villanueva

Facts: In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in
Laguna. In said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said
case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the opposed the appearance of
Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney
had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by
operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice.

Held: Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a justice of the peace a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace
Court as an agent or friend of the offended party. It does not appear that he was being paid for his
services or that his appearance was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo he
had no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of
Alaminos, Laguna, because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attornev of San Pablo. There could be no possible
conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as
private prosecutor in this criminal case. On the other hand, as already pointed out, the offended party in
this criminal case had a right to be represented by an agent or a friend to protect her rights in the civil
action which was impliedly instituted together with the criminal action. this Court holds that Asst. City
Attorney Ariston D. Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna as
private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend of the offended party. We believe that the
isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and
contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise.

Cayetano vs Monsod

Issue: WON respondent possess the requirement of 10 year practice of law

Held: Interpreted in the light of various definitions of the term practice of law particularly the modern
concept of law practice , and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers
of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the
rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years. Despite complex opinion on the matter, and regardless of
which view a lawyer may favor, settled is the rule that under the doctrine of stare decisis, every one
must adhere to the controlling decision of the Supreme Court.

Ulep vs The Legal Clinic, Inc.

Facts: Respondent averred that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in rendering of “legal support
services” through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.

Issue: WON this is a practice of law; if it is WON it is prohibited advertising

Ruling: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel,
and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such
matter may or may not be pending in court.

Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with
respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to the proper
interpretation of a statute and receives pay for it, is to that extent, practicing law. In providing
information about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, the corporation, with its attorneys
and paralegals will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him/her
on the proper course of action to take as may be provided by law. The activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of “practice of law”.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed.

1. Publication in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card which may include special branch of law practices
3. Simple announcement of opening of law firm
4. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

CANON 1-6
SANTUYO VS HIDALGO
Issue: WON the signature of the respondent on the deed of sale was forged? WON respondent is guilty
of negligence?
Ruling: Yes, the alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgo’s signatures in other documents
submitted during the investigation. Hidalgo is found guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty
as notary public. This is because he wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics of the
documents for notarization to the office secretaries, including the safekeeping of dryseal. Responsibility
attached to a notary public is sensitive respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in the
execution of his duties. He is suspended from his commission as notary public for 2 years for
negligence in the performance of duties as notary public.
SICAT VS ARIOLA

Facts: According to complainant, respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the said document
on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter had already died on October 25, 2000. Complainant further
charged respondent with the crime of falsification penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code
by making it appear that certain persons participated in an act or proceeding when in fact they did not.
It is also evident that respondent cannot feign innocence and claim that he did not know Mr. Benitez
was already dead at the time because respondent, as member of the Prequalification and Awards
Committee of the Municipality of Cainta, personally knew Mr. Benitez because the latter appeared
before the Committee a number of times. It is evident that the Special Power of Attorney dated 4
January 2001 was part of a scheme of individuals to defraud the Municipality of Cainta of money which
was allegedly due them, and that respondent by notarizing said Special Power of Attorney helped said
parties succeed in their plans

Ruling: His act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibited him from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it was his
duty to serve the ends of justice,[9] not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected to act at all times in
accordance with law and ethics, and if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the public but
also bring reproach upon an honorable profession. In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died
on October 25, 2000. However, respondent notarized the SPA, purportedly bearing the signature of
Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more than two months after the latters death. The notarial
acknowledgement of respondent declared that Benitez appeared before him and acknowledged that the
instrument was his free and voluntary act. Clearly, respondent lied and intentionally perpetuated an
untruthful statement. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act.[13] It converts a
private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. His assertion of falsehood in a public document
contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on
the truthfulness of every notarial act. As the Municipal Administrator of Cainta, he should have been
aware of his great responsibility not only as a notary public but as a public officer as well. A public office
is a public trust. Respondent should not have caused disservice to his constituents by consciously
performing an act that would deceive them and the Municipality of Cainta.
Respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law.

ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Ruling: Yes, Atty Paguia has not limited his discussion to the merits of his clients case within the
judicial forum. Indeed he has repeated his assault on the Court in broadcast and print media. Canon 11 f
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain respect
due to the courts and judicial officers.
The Courts has already warned Atty Paguia, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyes.
Apprarently, he has chosen not to take heed. Therefore, he is indefinitely suspended from the practice
of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the court.

The act of the public officer, if LAWFUL, is the act of the public office. But the act of the public officer, if
UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the public office. Consequently, the act of the justices, if LAWFUL, is the act
of the Supreme Court. But the act of the justices, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the Supreme Court. It is
submitted that the Decision in ESTRADA vs. ARROYO being patently unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of the
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, is not the act of the Supreme Court but is merely the wrong or trespass of
those individual Justices who falsely spoke and acted in the name of the Supreme Court. (Urbano vs.
Chavez, 183 SCRA [347]). Furthermore, it would seem absurd to allow the Justices to use the name of
the Supreme Court as a shield for their UNLAWFUL act. (Petition, Rollo, p. 11.)
Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness,
of a decision of the Court would be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court
and contribute to the correction of an error if committed.

Khan vs Simbillo

Facts: This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000
issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist
532-4333/521-2667." Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of
the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party.
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the
other half after a decision thereon has been rendered. 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.3

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.

Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.12 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.13 The gaining of
a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.14 The duty to public service and to the administration
of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests
or what they owe to themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a
business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;

2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving thorough 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, or dealing directly with
their clients.16

Ruling: Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for
solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a
modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the use of
simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even
the use of calling cards is now acceptable.21 Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is
likewise allowable. Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer’s
name and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates
of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor;
legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees
thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law
lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients
regularly represented.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for
other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit
his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are calculated or
likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement
of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and
special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm
or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of
the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but
not under a designation of special branch of law.

RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for ONE (1) YEAR

DACANAY VS BAKER & MCKENZIE

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities
around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the
firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the
highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to
practise law here. (See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)

ARCIGA VS MANIWANG

This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.

PAGCOR VS CARANDANG

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and the legal processes. It also prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful conduct
(Canon 1 & Rule 1.01). By issuing the bouncing checks in blatant violation of B.P. Blg. 22, respondent
clearly was irresponsible and displayed lack of concern for the rights of others nor for the canons of
professional responsibility

Section 1, B. P. Blg. 22 provides:

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually
signed the check on behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, even if the check was drawn by Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable.

The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check
or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment xxx. The thrust of the law is to prohibit
under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because
of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes
the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates
is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of
putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the
channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society
and the public interest.

As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B. P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in
violation of the provisions of this law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct.

the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorney, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a
person of good moral character. So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice
and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the principles which his license and
the law confer upon him.

Respondent likewise violated the Attorney’s Oath that he will, among others, obey the laws; and the
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the following provisions:

Cannon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Atty. Dante A. Carandang is declared GUILTY of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney’s
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. As recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice.
GUEVARRA VS EALA
Facts: Illicit affair with Irene

Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office,
and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent in fact violated the lawyer’s oath he took before admission to practice law. Respondent
admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution which provides that
“Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
the State.”
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct,” and Rule 7.03
of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any “conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law.”

It was both respondent's love nest, to put short; their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a
few months later when Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby hospital of St. Luke's Medical Center.
What finally militates against the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the certificate of birth of the
girl, Moje furnished the information that Eala was the father. This speaks all too eloquently of the
unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of the respondents.

STEMMERIK VS MAS

Facts: Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. He consulted respondent who
advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. Trusting respondent,
complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as his representative or attorney-in-
fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary
documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received a ₱400,000 fee.

Ruling: Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious
documents that he knew were void and illegal.

By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa
thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he
falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law. Respondent’s misconduct did
not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in
the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately
foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him
by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting with ₱400,000 for
services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the
₱3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent
act that was criminal in nature.1avvphi1
Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after unethical act,
wantonly violating laws and professional standards.

For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

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.

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF
THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis supplied)

Side Note: Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National Office or their
respective chapters19 of any change in office or residential address and other contact details.20 In case
such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address appearing in the
records of the IBP National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him.

Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED

SORIANO VS DIZON
FACTS:
Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor when along Abanao Street, Baguio
City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto
Soriano, the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open his door,
causing Dizon to fall to the ground. According to the doctors who treated him, he would have died if not
for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord injury causing the left side of his body to
be paralyzed, disabling him for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated
homicide but was allowed probation, conditioned on payment of civil liabilities.

Ruling:
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is
a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit
to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character.13 In
the instant case, respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of
frustrated homicide. Since his conviction has already been established and is no longer open to
question, the only issues that remain to be determined are as follows: 1) whether his crime of
frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude, and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment.

Moral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good
morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals

The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, respondent
revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a god on the
road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple
traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His overreaction
also evinced vindictiveness, which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a
lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant, we see not the persistence of a person who
has been grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to
exact revenge.

Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the profession of
lawyers, but certainly to their good moral character.22 Where their misconduct outside of their
professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the
privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or
removing them from that office

The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to obey the laws of the land through his illegal
possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through his unjust refusal to
satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his probation.
Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s violation was exhibited
when he tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations
failed, he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to get a referral to a neurosurgeon.
In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him.
According to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his injuries were so minor that his allegation was
so improbable.

The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly showed his
unfitness to continue as a member of the bar. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege
demanding a high degree of good moral character, which is not only a condition precedent to admission,
but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar must be exercised
with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when any lesser penalty would
accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with
the lofty aspiration that every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was
disbarred.

DONTON VS TANSINGCO

Facts: This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco ("respondent")
for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1,1 Rules 1.012 and 1.023 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility ("Code").

Ruling: The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.

A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the
laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.9 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who
connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.10

By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real
property.11 Yet, in his motion for reconsideration,12 respondent admitted that he caused the transfer
of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly
rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant’s name. But respondent provided "some
safeguards" by preparing several documents,13 including the Occupancy Agreement, that would
guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant’s
name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition
against foreign ownership of lands14 by preparing said documents.

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he
prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands.
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to
malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.
respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from
the practice of law for SIX MONTHS.

LIM-SANTIAGO VS SAGUCIO