ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

(Case Digests)

YEAR 2012
Legal Ethics

SUBMITTED BY:

AREJOLA, ALEC KRISTIAN

DELOS REYES, NICOLE ANN
(JD1A)

SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. AVELINO SALES JR.

Page 1 | 71
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Aurora D. Cerdan v. Atty. Gomez…………………………………………………….....4

Corazon T. Nevada v. Atty. Casuga…………………………………………………......7
Josefina Aninon v. Atty. Sabitsana……………………………………………………...12
Suzette Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano……………………………………………….. 16
AC 6332………………………………………………………………………………....19
Lorenzo D. Brennisen v. Atty. Contawi………………………………………………...36
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo………………………………....39
Rodrigo Molina v. Atty. Magat………………………………………………………....43
Emilia Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla……………………………………………………....45
Miguel Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos……………………………………………….....49
Isaac Basilio, Peralta Pedrozo and Jun Basilio v. Atty. Castro………………………....56
Atty. Policario Catalan Jr. v. Atty. Silvosa……………………………………………...60
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon v. Atty, Pefianco……………………………………………...64
Emilia Dhaliwal v. Atty. Dumaguing…………………………………………………...68
Mila Virtusio v. Atty. Virtusio……………………………………………………….....71
Herminia Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Bautista……………………………………….....76
Maria Victoria Ventura v. Atty. Samson……………………………………………......81
Amparo Bueno v. Atty. Raneses…………………………………………………….......86

B. VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER’S OATH

Martin Lahm III and James Concepcion v Labor Arbiter Mayor……………………....92

Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Atty. Funk……………………………....96

C. VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF COURT

RE: SC Decision v. Atty. Pactolin……………………………………………………...101

D. VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL LAW

Nesa Isenhardt v. Atty. Real…………………………………………………………....105

William Hector Maria v. Atty. Cortez…………………………………………………..108

NO VIOLATION

Jasper Junno Rodica v. Atty. Lazaro………………………………………………….....113

Robert Victor Seares v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate……………………………………….....118

Page 2 | 71
Page 3 | 71
VIOLATION OF THE
CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY

Page 4 | 71
1.

A.C. No. 9154 March 19, 2012 (Formerly CBD No. 07-
1965) AURORA D. CERDAN, Petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. CARLO GOMEZ, Respondent.

III. Facts

The case stemmed from the affidavit-complaint of

Aurora D. Cerdan. The complaint alleged that complainant
and widower Benjamin Rufino lived together as husband
and wife; that during their cohabitation, they purchased
several real properties; that they maintained savings
accounts, all of which were in the name of Rufino; that
when Rufino died, complainant sought the legal advice of
Atty. Gomez as to what to do with the properties left by
Rufino; and that she paid Atty. Gomez attorney’s fees in
the amount of ₱152,000.00 but only the amount of
₱100,000.00 was reflected in the receipt. Complainant
claimed that she authorized Atty. Gomez, thru a special
power of attorney to settle Rufino’s savings account; that
the original agreement of a 50-50 sharing between
complainant and the children of Rufino, was replaced by
the Compromise Agreement entered into by Atty. Gomez,
wherein the heirs of Rufino got 60% of the share while she
only received 40%; that Atty. Gomez took her bank book
for the FCB account in Narra Branch containing deposits
and never returned it to her. Complainant alleged that Atty.
Gomez violated the Canon 16 of the CPR.

Page 5 | 71
II. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Gomez violated the Canon 16

of the CPR.

III. Ruling

Yes. In this case, Atty. Gomez failed to observe the

utmost good faith, loyalty, candor, and fidelity required of
an attorney in his dealings with complainant. Atty. Gomez
exceeded his authority when he entered into a
compromise agreement with regard to the FCB account in
Quezon Branch, where he agreed that complainant shall
receive 40 percent of the proceeds while the heirs of
Rufino shall get the 60 percent, which was contrary to the
original agreement of 50-50 sharing. Atty. Gomez likewise
acted beyond the scope of the SPA when he included in
the compromise agreement the FCB account in Narra
branch when it was issued only with respect to the FCB
account, Quezon branch. Moreover, Atty. Gomez entered
into a compromise agreement with respect to the other
properties of Rufino without authority from complainant.
Furthermore, Atty. Gomez failed to account for the money
he received for complainant as a result of the compromise
agreement. Worse, he remitted the amount of ₱
290,000.00 only, an amount substantially less than the
share of complainant. He is suspended from the practice
of law.

Page 6 | 71
2.

A.C. No. 7591 March 20, 2012 CORAZON T. NEVADA,

Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA, Respondent.

IIII. Facts

Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada &

Sons, Inc. in her affidavit-complaint, Nevada alleges that
she and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ
Church. According to her, she has allowed the use of one
of the Hotel’s functions rooms for church services. And in
time, Casuga was able to gain her trust and confidence.
Nevada further alleges that unbeknownst to her, Casuga,
started to represent himself as the administrator of the
Hotel. In fact, he entered into a contract of lease with a
certain Jung Jong Chul covering an office space in the
Hotel. Notably, Casuga signed the lease contract over the
printed name of one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized the
document himself. The amount thus deposited, so Nevada
claims, was never turned over to her or to C.T. Nevada &
Sons, Inc. Nevada adds that, in the course of their
acquaintanceship, Casuga was able to acquire from her
several pieces of jewelry, Casuga took possession of the
valuables purportedly with the obligation of selling them
and to remit any proceeds to Nevada. However, despite
repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to return the

Page 7 | 71
valuables or otherwise remit the proceeds of the sale, no
jewelry or money was ever returned.

V. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Casuga violated the lawyer’s

oath and the Notarial Law.

VI. Ruling

Yes. Casuga represented himself as a duly- authorized

representative of Nevada when in fact he was not. Casuga
admitted signing the subject contract of lease, but claimed
that he was duly authorized to do so by Nevada. However,
Casuga failed to adduce an iota of evidence to prove that
he was indeed so authorized. Plainly enough, Casuga is
guilty of misrepresentation, when he made it appear that
he was authorized to enter into a contract of lease in
behalf of Nevada when, in fact, he was not. Furthermore,
the records reveal that Casuga received the rentals by
virtue of the contract of lease, benefitting from his
misrepresentation. He also violated Canon 16 of the CPR
with regard to the jewelry and watch entrusted to him.
Casuga’s failure to return such property or remit the
proceeds of the sale is a blatant violation of Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court found
him guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him from
the practice of law for four years.

Page 8 | 71
3.

A.C. No. 5098 April 11, 2012

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.

X. Facts:

In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon related that she

previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in
the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of
Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law

Page 9 | 71
husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly
violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil
case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in
behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido
Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of
using the confidential information he obtained from her in
filing the civil case.

XI. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana Jr. violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

XII. Ruling

Yes. On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we

find substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana’s
violation of the above rule, as established by the following
circumstances on record: One, his legal services were
initially engaged by the complainant to protect her interest
over a certain property. Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with
Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter’s legal interest over
the property subject of the Deed of Sale. Three, despite
the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two
clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from
Zenaida Cañete. Four, Atty. Sabitsana’s actual knowledge
of the conflicting interests between his two clients was
demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case
against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete;
second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in
the case; and third, the case he filed was for the

Page 10 | 71
annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously
prepared and executed for the complainant. By his acts,
not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client
against another client in the same action; he also
accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend
and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in
which his legal services had been previously retained.
Moreover, Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of
facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Cañete before he
accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Cañete. The
records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote
a letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida
Cañete’s adverse claim to the property covered by the
Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse claim;
Atty. Sabitsana however did not disclose to the
complainant that he was also being engaged as counsel
by Zenaida Cañete. He is found guilty for misconduct in
taking cases with conflicting interests. He is suspended
from the practice of law.

4.

A.C. No. 6903 April 16, 2012 SUZETTE DEL MUNDO,

Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, Respondent.

XIII. Facts

Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the

legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial

Page 11 | 71
declaration of nullity of their respective marriages. On the
same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered
into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano. In
accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty.
Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00. For every
payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty.
Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the
latter made her believe that the two cases were already
filed and awaiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July
2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she
verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and
discovered that while the case of Tuparan had been filed
on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.
Hence, Suzette called for a conference where she
demanded the refund of the total amount of
PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to
return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis
claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of
Tuparan’s case, to which she agreed. However, Atty.
Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 on
August 15, 2005 and thereafter, refused to communicate
with her, prompting the institution of this administrative
complaint.

XIIII. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Capistrano violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

XV. Ruling

Page 12 | 71
 Yes, Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his
sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation
and Petition for Review, he himself admitted liability for his
failure to act on Suzette’s case as well as to account and
return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for
the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention to
breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is his first offense; and
that his profession is the only means of his and his family’s
livelihood. Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust
money of his client that may come to his possession. As
trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate
and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a
specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a
case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon
demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that
he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed
on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him
constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. He is
suspended from the practice of law.

Page 13 | 71
5.

A.C. No. 6332 April 17, 2012

IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 28
APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND 145822

XVI. Facts

This administrative case originated when respondent Atty.

Magdaleno M. Peña filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and
to Resolve Respondent’s Urgent Omnibus Motion in two
consolidated petitions involving respondent that were
pending before the Court. This motion is directed against
the then ponente of the consolidated petitions, Justice
Antonio T. Carpio, and reads in part:
PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, pro
se, respectfully states:
1. Despite all the obstacles respondent has had to hurdle
in his quest for justice against Urban Bank and its officials,

Page 14 | 71
he has remained steadfast in his belief that ultimately, he
will be vindicated and the wrongdoers will get their just
deserts.
2. Private respondent wishes to make clear that he is not
making a sweeping accusation against all the members of
this Honorable Court.
3. In the evening of 19 November 2002, private
respondent received a call from the counsel for petitioners,
Atty. Manuel R. Singson who very excitedly bragged that
they had been able to secure an order from this Honorable
Court suspending the redemption period and the
consolidation of ownership over the Urban Bank properties
sold during the execution sale.
4. Private respondent composed himself and tried to recall
if there was any pending incident with this Honorable
Court regarding the suspension of the redemption period
but he could not remember any. In an effort to hide his
discomfort, respondent teased Atty. Singson about bribing
the ponente to get such an order. Much to his surprise,
Atty. Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact
explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort
because they could not afford to lose the properties
involved.
5. Since private respondent himself had not received a
copy of the order that Atty. Singson was talking about, he
asked Atty. Singson to fax him the "advance" copy that
they had received.
6. It appeared that a supposed Motion for Clarification was
filed by petitioners through Atty. Singson, but he was
never furnished a copy thereof.

Page 15 | 71
7. The Motion for Clarification was thus resolved without
even giving respondent an opportunity to comment on the
same.
8. In view of these circumstances, private respondent filed
an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Expunge Motion for
Clarification and Recall of the 13 November 2002
Resolution.
9. While private respondent was waiting for petitioners to
respond to his motion, he received sometime last week
two documents that confirmed his worst fears. The two
documents indicate that this Honorable Court has not
actually granted petitioners’ Motion for Clarification. They
indicate that the Resolution of this Honorable Court which
Atty. Singson had bragged about was a falsified
document.

XVII. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Peña violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

XVIII. Ruling

Yes. Respondent Peña is administratively liable for

making gratuitous imputations of bribery and wrongdoing
against a member of the Court. In the subject Motion for
Inhibition, respondent Peña insinuated that the then
ponente of the case had been "bribed" by Atty. Singson,
counsel of Urban Bank in the consolidated petitions, in
light of the questioned 13 November 2002 Resolution,
suspending the period of redemption of the levied

Page 16 | 71
properties pending appeal. The subject Motion to Inhibit
reads in part:
4. Private respondent composed himself and tried to recall
if there was any pending incident with this Honorable
Court regarding the suspension of the redemption period
but he could not remember any. In an effort to hide his
discomfort, respondent teased Atty. Singson about bribing
the ponente to get such an order. Much to his surprise,
Atty. Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact
explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort
because they could not afford to lose the properties
involved.
During the 03 March 2003 Executive Session by the First
Division of this Court, respondent Peña explained that his
reference to the bribe was merely a "joke" in the course of
a telephone conversation between lawyers.
It is completely wrong for respondent Peña to claim
that the action had been issued without any sufficient
basis or evidence on record, and hence was done so with
partiality. A mere adverse ruling of the court is not
adequate to immediately justify the imputation of such bias
or prejudice as to warrant inhibition of a Member of this
Court, absent any verifiable proof of specific misconduct.
Suspicions or insinuations of bribery involving a member
of this Court, in exchange for a favorable resolution, are
grave accusations. They cannot be treated lightly or be
"jokingly" alleged by parties, much less by counsel in
pleadings or motions. These suspicions or insinuations
strike not only at the stature or reputation of the individual
members of the Court, but at the integrity of its decisions
as well.

Page 17 | 71
 Atty. Peña cannot be excused for uttering snide and
accusatory remarks at the expense of the reputation and
integrity of members of this Court, and for using those
unsubstantiated claims as basis for the subject Motion for
Inhibition. Instead of investigating the veracity of Atty.
Singson’s revelations, respondent read too much into the
declarations and the purported silence of opposing
counsel towards his joke. Respondent made unfounded
imputations of impropriety to a specific Member of the
Court. Such conduct does not befit a member of the legal
profession and falls utterly short of giving respect to the
Court and upholding its dignity.
Atty. Peña is disbarred from the practice of law.

6.

A.C. No. 7481 April 24, 2012

LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, Respondent.

XXII. Facts:

Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land

located in San Dionisio, Parañaque City covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 211762 of the
Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Being a
resident of the United States of America (USA), he
entrusted the administration of the subject property to
respondent, together with the corresponding owner's

Page 18 | 71
duplicate title. Unbeknownst to complainant, however,
respondent, through a spurious Special Power of Attorney
dated February 22, 1989, mortgaged and subsequently
sold the subject property to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November
15, 2001. As a result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and
replaced by TCT No. 1508145 issued in favor of Ho. Thus,
on April 16, 2007, complainant filed the instant
administrative complaint against respondent for having
violated his oath as a lawyer, causing him damage and
prejudice.

XXIII. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Contawi violated the lawyer’s oath.

XXIIII. Ruling

Yes, the respondent acted with deceit when, through the

use of a falsified document, he effected the unauthorized
mortgage and sale of his client's property for his personal
benefit.Indisputably, respondent disposed of complainant's
property without his knowledge or consent, and partook of
the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit. His contention
that he merely accommodated the request of his then
financially-incapacitated office assistants to confirm the
spurious SPA is flimsy and implausible, as he was fully
aware that complainant's signature reflected thereon was
forged. As aptly opined by Commissioner De Mesa, the
fraudulent transactions involving the subject property were
affected using the owner's duplicate title, which was in

Page 19 | 71
respondent's safekeeping and custody during
complainant's absence. Atty. Contawi is found guilty of the
said act and was disbarred from the practice of law.

7.

A.C. No. 6368 June 13, 2012 FIDELA BENGCO AND

TERESITA BENGCO, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO, Respondent.

XXV. Facts

Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance

and collusion with a certain Andres Magat willfully and
illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud
Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by using false
pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would
expedite the titling of the land belonging to the Miranda
family of Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of
complainants herein and they convinced herein
complainants that if they will finance and deliver to him the
amount of [₱]495,000.00 as advance money he would
expedite the titling of the subject land and further by
means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself
as lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of
the subject land.

Page 20 | 71
XXVI. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Bernardo violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

XXVII. Ruling

It is first worth mentioning that the respondent’s

defense of prescription is untenable. The Court has held
that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe.
The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative
complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a
lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only be
emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
private complainant would immediately come forward, they
stand a chance of being completely exonerated from
whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
It cannot be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in
the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal
system, they are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith
and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers
may be disciplined – whether in their professional or in
their private capacity – for any conduct that is wanting in
morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.
There is no question that the respondent committed the
acts complained of. He himself admitted in his answer that
his legal services were hired by the complainants through

Page 21 | 71
Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly
purchased. While he begs for the Court’s indulgence, his
contrition is shallow considering the fact that he used his
position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants
into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject
properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from
the money given by the complainants in the amount of
₱495,000.00.
Atty. Bernardo is suspended from the practice of law for
one year.
8.

A.C. No. 1900 June 13, 2012 RODRIGO A. MOLINA,

Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, Respondent.

XXVIII. Facts

The case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment

filed by Rodrigo A. Molina against Atty. Magat. The
complaint alleged that complainant filed cases of Assault
Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority and Breach of the
Peace and Resisting Arrest against one Pascual de Leon;
that the counsel of record for accused de Leon in both
cases was Atty. Magat; that a case for slight physical
injuries was filed against him (Molina) by de Leon as a
counter-charge and Atty. Magat was also the private
prosecutor; that Atty. Magat subsequently filed a motion to
quash the information on Assault upon an Agent of a

Page 22 | 71
Person in Authority on the sole ground of double jeopardy
claiming that a similar case for slight physical injuries was
filed in court by a certain Pat. Molina (Molina); that based
on the record, no case of slight physical injuries was filed
by Molina against de Leon; that Atty. Magat was very
much aware of such fact as he was the counsel and
private prosecutor on record of de Leon from the very start
of the case way back on May 24, 1974; that Atty. Magat’s
act of filing the Motion to Quash was a malicious act done
in bad faith to mislead the court, thus, a betrayal of the
confidence of the court of which he is an officer; and that
Atty. Magat likewise committed willful disobedience of the
court order when he appeared as counsel for de Leon on
two occasions despite the fact that he was suspended
from the practice of law.

XXIX. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Magat violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

XXX. Ruling

Yes. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on

those who show that they possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and
fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
accordance with the values and norms of the legal

Page 23 | 71
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Magat’s act clearly falls short of the standards set by
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Furthermore, Atty. Magat expressly admitted appearing in
court on two occasions despite having been suspended
from the practice of law by the Court.
Atty. Magat is found guilty of said act. He is suspended
from the practice of law.
9.

A.C. No. 9387 June 20, 2012 (Formerly CBD Case No.
05-1562) EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA, Respondent.

XXXI. Facts

In a Decision penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang,

the RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor
of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay the
complainant therein, attorney’s fees and moral damages.
Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal
with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals ordered
them to file their Appellants’ Brief. They chose respondent
to represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a
Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief.
Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The
CA granted the Motion. No Motion for Reconsideration of
the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed by the
couple. Complainant claims that because respondent

Page 24 | 71
ignored the Resolution, he acted with "deceit,
unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law."
Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal,
because respondent never informed them of the adverse
decision. Complainant further claims that she asked
respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal,
but "despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response,”
to the damage and prejudice of the spouses. The
complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, seeking the disbarment of respondent on the
following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave
misconduct.

XXXII. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Padilla violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

III. Ruling

Yes. Respondent insists that he had never met

complainant prior to the mandatory conference set for the
disbarment Complaint she filed against him. However, a
perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the
appellate court revealed that he had signed as counsel for
the defendant- appellants therein, including complainant
and her husband. Nowhere does the document say that it
was filed only on behalf of complainant’s husband. It is
further claimed by respondent that the relation created
between him and complainant’s husband cannot be

Page 25 | 71
treated as a "client-lawyer" relationship. Moreover,
respondent does not deny that he was given notice of the
fact that he filed the wrong pleading. However, instead of
explaining his side by filing a comment, as ordered by the
appellate court, he chose to ignore the CA’s Order.
When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he engages
in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he
should be held accountable.
Atty. Padilla is found guilty of the said act.
10.

MIGUEL G. VILLATUYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant averred that he was employed by respondent as a
financial consultant in the latter's corporate rehabilitation cases.
Complainant claimed that they hadan agreement whereby he
would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the
court in the cases they would handle and 10% of the fees paid by
the client. The respondent was able to rake millions of pesos
from the cases they were working on together. Complainant
claimed that he was entitled to the amount of ₱900,000 for the
18 Stay Orders issued by the courts, and a total of ₱4,539,000
from the fees paid by their clients. Furthermore, the
complainant alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful
solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy
firms and used them to advertise his legal services and solicit

Page 26 | 71
cases. And lastly, the complainant charges the respondent of
gross immorality, complaining that the latter committed two
counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his
first marriage was subsisting.
The Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first
charge was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge,
the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on
the solicitation of client for having advertised his legal services
and unlawfully solicited cases. As for the third charge, the
Commission found respondent to be guilty of gross immorality
for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The IBP Board of Governors, approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUES:
Whether respondent Atty. Tabalingcos is guilty of violating the
rule on the solicitation of client for having advertised his legal
services and unlawfully solicited cases and whether the
respondent is guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
RULING:
The Court affirms the recommendations of the IBP to disbar
respondent and order that his name be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.
Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the
Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the
purpose of profit. The court stressed that a lawyer is not
prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.

Page 27 | 71
Rule 15.08 of the Code also mandates that the lawyer is
mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those
occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is
confusing for the client if it is not clear whether respondent is
offering consultancy or legal services.
On the third charge of bigamy, the Court stated that respondent
exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His acts of
committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct
and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court. He is expected to be competent,
honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be
expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in
doing so.

Page 28 | 71
11.

ISAAC C. BASILIO, PERALTA PEDROZO and JUN

BASILIO, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO Respondent.
A.C. No. 6910 July 11, 2012

FACTS:
Complainants engaged the legal services of respondent Atty.
Castro to handle their cases. In the decision of on of their cases
in the Municiapal Trial Court of Bambang, the court ruled
against the them. When they appealed to the RTC, the same was
dismissed for their failure to file the required appellants’
memorandum despite notice.
Complainants filed a petition praying for the suspension or
cancellation of the license of Atty. Castro. The complianants
allege that they paid the respondent the amounts of P40,000 as
acceptance fee and P20,000 as filing fee, which he supposedly
charged them despite the actual filing fee totalling only P1,000.
The complainants also assailed that the respondent failed to
prosecute the cases before MTC Bambang, resulting in their
dismissal.
Through the informations gather in the Pre-Trial Briefs, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Castro be
suspended for six months. The former ruled that there was
insufficient evidence to show that the latter reneged on his
obligation to serve his clients . Nonetheless, he should be held
administratively liable for failing to file the requisite appellants’
memorandum before the RTC. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved with modification the Report and

Page 29 | 71
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner ordering
the suspension of Atty. Castro for three months.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilty in violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility in failing to protect the interest of
the complainants.

RULING:
The court reiterated the well-settled rule that the failure of
counsel to file the requisite appellant’s brief amounted to
inexcusable negligence, to wit: The failure of respondent to file
the appellant’s brief for complainant within the reglementary
period constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
In Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, this Court
held that an attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file
brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence
on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious
lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the
Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy
administration of justice.
All told, the Court rule and so hold that on account of
respondent’s failure to protect the interest of complainant,
respondent indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent is reminded that the
practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those
who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.
This Court has been exacting in its expectations for the members
of the Bar to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal

Page 30 | 71
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence of the public.

Page 31 | 71
12.

ATTY. POLICARIO I. CATALAN, JR., Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7360 July 24,2012

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Silvosa was an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
of Bukidnon and a Prosecutor in Regional Trial Court, Branch
10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Atty. Silvosa appeared as
public prosecutor in a Criminal Case, in which case,
Complainant Atty. Catalan was one of the private complainants.
Complainant took issue with the respondent's manner of
prosecuting the case, and requested the Provincial Prosecutor to
relieve Atty. Silvosa.
In his first cause of action, complainant accused respondent of
appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously
appeared as public prosecutor, hence violating Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants also alleged
that, apart from the fact the respondentand the accused are
relatives and have the same middle name, the latter displayed
manifest bias in the accused’s favor. In his second cause of
action, complainant presented an affidavit of Pros. Toribio
testifying that while still a public at the time, respondent offered
her P30,000 to reconsider her findings and uphold the charge of
frustrated murder. Finally, in the third cause of action,
complainant presented the Sandiganbayan’s decision in Criminal
Case No. 27776, convicting respondent of direct bribery on 18
May 2006.

Page 32 | 71
The CBD recommended that the respondent is guilty of the first
charge only because on the second charge, claim of bribery that
occurred more than seven years ago. In this instance, the
conflicting allegations are merely based on the word of one
person against the word of another. And on the third charge, the
findings of the Sandiganbayan are not binding upon this
Commission.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilty of violating Code of
Professional Responsibility for his actions.

RULING:
On the first cause of action, the court said act of the respondent
would constitute sufficient intervention in the case. Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility states "A lawyer shall
not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service." The Court agree with the
CBD's finding the respondent violated Rule 6.03, when he
entered his appearance in the motion to Post Bail Pending
Appeal. On the second cause of action, the court said that there
is certain difficulty to dissect a claim of bribery that occurred
more than seven years ago. Administrative offenses do not
prescribe. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time
of the commission of the act complaint of and the time of the
institution of the complaint, erringmember of the bench and bar
can not escape thedisciplining arm of the Court. And on the third
cause of action, the court said that the crime involving moral
turpitude can be a ground for disbarment. Moral turpitude is
defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the

Page 33 | 71
private duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society
in general, contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. There is
no doubt that the Sandiganbayans' judgement in Criminal Case
No. 27776 is a matter of public record and is already final. Rule
138, Section 27 provides, A member of the bar may be disbarred
by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude. The respondent is disbarred.

13.

ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012

FACTS:
According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him
10% of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in
representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in an action for
partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement
was reflected in a letter. However, respondent failed to pay him
the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney’s
fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40
million. Instead, the complainant was informed through a letter
that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after the respondent
had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He
then demanded the payment of his commission which the
respondent ignored.
Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up
to the high moral standards required of his profession for having
abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and

Page 34 | 71
cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also
accused the respondent of engaging in money-lending business
without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.
In the Report and Recommendation, the Investigating IBP
Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for
one year from the active practice of law, for violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01,
Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for his actions.

RULING:
The Court adopted the ruling of the IBP. The court stressed
lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of
legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing,
and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the
values and norms embodied in the Code.
In the present case, the respondent failed in paying the
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to
Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9
of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or
stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not
obtain in the case at bar.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he
abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress. The

Page 35 | 71
settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or
sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of
marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws. Consequently, We find no reason to
disturb the IBP's finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's
Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." The Supreme Court ruled that respondent
should be sanctioned for his actions. Thus, the respondent is
suspended from the practice of law for one year.

14.

EMILIA O. DHALIWAL, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012

FACTS:
Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues in purchasing a
parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. Their case
reached the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
She then engaged the services of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in
the year 2000. Atty. Dumaguing was given P342,000.00 for him
to consign with the HLURB. With the consignment, he filed a
petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title
to Dhaliwal. However, a week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew
from the HLURB the amount of P311,819.94.

Page 36 | 71
In 2003, Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing.
In the same year, Dhaliwal lost in the HLURB case. She then
demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return her the P311,819.94 he
earlier withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing refused to return said
amount. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Dumaguing.
The Commission on Bar Discipline, through Attorney Gerely C.
Rico, submitted its Report and Recommendation finding
complainant to have sufficiently established that respondent
violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The CBD recommended the suspension of Atty. Dumaguing
from the practice of law for six months.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility because of the failure to hold in trust
the money of the complainant and has failed to deliver the funds
and property when due or upon demand by the latter.

RULING:
The Court stated that the money entrusted to a lawyer for a
specific purpose, such as payment for the balance of the
purchase price of a parcel of land as in the present case, but not
used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. "A
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on
behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment.”

Page 37 | 71
Since respondent withdrew the consignation of the BPI
manager’s checks in the total amount of ₱ 311,891.94 from the
HLURB and the same was not used to settle the balance of the
purchase price of the parcel of land purchased by complainant
from Fil-Estate, then reimbursement with legal interest4 was
properly ordered by the IBP.
Respondent's proffered excuse of having to await the HLURB
action on his alleged motion-- the filing of which he miserably
failed to prove-- as a condition to the return of the sum of ₱ 311
,891.94 to complainant compounds his liability and even
bolstered his attitude to use dishonest means if only to evade his
obligation. It underlines his failure to meet the high moral
standards required of members of the legal profession.
Therefore, the respondent is found guilty and hereby suspended
from the practice of law for 6 months.

15.
MILA VIRTUSIO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. GRENALYN V. VIRTUSIO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6753 September 5, 2012

FACTS:
Mila Virtusio filed with this Court a Complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio. Mila alleged that Atty.
Virtusio convinced her to buy a house and lot from a developer,
Stateland Investment Corporation. Mila agreed for Atty.
Virtusio to use her personal checks in paying the seller with
Mila reimbursing her. Under this arrangement, Mila gave Atty.
Virtusio ₱ 441,000.00 in total. To her surprise, however, Mila

Page 38 | 71
began receiving letters from Stateland, demanding that she make
good the dishonored checks that it got. When she confronted
Atty. Virtusio regarding this, the latter assured her that she
would take care of the problem. But the demand letters
persisted. For fear of losing the property, Mila directly dealt
with Stateland in January 2000. She then found out that her
arrearages had come close to ₱ 200,000.00, inclusive of penalty
and interest.
Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return to her
the money the latter misappropriated despite demand. Mila
claimed that Atty. Virtusio evaded the return of money she
misappropriated, impeded the execution of a final judgment, and
engaged in conduct that discredits the legal profession, all in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, rendering
her unfit to remain a member of the bar.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Virtusio failed to use the money given by
another to fund the checks she issued as accommodation party
in payment for the property as violation to the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for the
administration of justice, expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, and
fair dealing. A lawyer’s gross misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, is ground for suspension or
disbarment under the principle that, since good moral character
is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of

Page 39 | 71
law, maintaining such trait is a condition for keeping the
privilege.
By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the
money that Mila entrusted to her for payment to Stateland. Her
excuse is that she lost track of her finances and mixed up her
office funds with her personal funds. But this excuse is too thin.
. Atty. Virtusio’s use for personal purpose of money entrusted to
her constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct under the Code
of Professional Responsibility. It provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Atty. Virtusio is guilty by her above acts of gross misconduct
that warrants her suspension for one year from the practice of
law following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
16.

HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6733October 10, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she engaged the legal services of
Respondent to file a complaint against complainant’s siblings.
For his legal services, respondent demanded ₱ 15,000 as
acceptance fee, plus ₱ 1,000 per court appearance. Complainant
then paid respondent the ₱ 15,000 acceptance fee. Six months
after she hired respondent, complainant severed the legal
services of respondent because respondent failed to file a
complaint within a reasonable period of time. Complainant then
sent a letter to respondent, asking for the refund of ₱ 14,000 out
of the ₱ 15,000 acceptance fee. Complainant stated in her letter

Page 40 | 71
that due to respondent’s "failure to institute the desired
complaint on time", complainant was compelled to hire the
services of another counsel to file the complaint. Respondent
failed to refund the ₱ 14,000, prompting complainant to file her
complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme
Court.
Complainant charged respondent with violation of Canon 18,
Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, violation of the lawyer’s oath, grave misconduct,
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation or decision. The
Investigating Commissioner found respondent "guilty of
violation of the lawyer’s oath, Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 22.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, grave misconduct
and thereby recommend that he be suspended for a period of one
year with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will be
severely dealt with." Respondent was also ordered to refund to
complainant the sum of ₱ 14,000.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.02, Rule
22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the
lawyer's oath.

RULING:
The Court finds Atty. Rosario B. Bautista GUILTY of violating
Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
We agree with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner
that respondent breached his duty to serve his client with

Page 41 | 71
competence and diligence. Respondent is also guilty of violating
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable." However, we do not find respondent guilty of violating
Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since
respondent immediately turned over to complainant the folder
containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case upon
the severance of respondent’s legal services. Once a lawyer
receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is expected
to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s
cause with diligence, care and devotion.
The Supreme Court modified the recommended penalty by the
IBP CBD from six months to admonished.

Page 42 | 71
17.

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9608 November 27, 2012
FACTS:
Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement that at the
respondent house, respondent entered and went on top of her.
Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her breast, and succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her. Also, at respondent’s poultry
farm, he brought her to an old shanty where he sexually abused
her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and
warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he would
kill her and her mother.
In her Supplemental-Complaint, complainant averred that
respondent allowed her to sleep in his house after her mother
agreed to let her stay there while she studied at the Agusan
National High School. She further stated that on that night she
was sexually abused.
In its Report and Recommendation dated October 10, 2007, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that
respondent be suspended for a period of one year from the
practice of law for immorality with the warning that repetition of
the same or similar act will merit a more severe penalty.
On November 10, 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP
resolved to adopt and approve, as it is hereby unanimously
adopted and approved with modification, the report and
recommendation of the investigating commissioner of the
above-entitled case

Page 43 | 71
ISSUES:
Whether the respondent, through his grossly immoral acts, is
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
From the facts gathered, from the evidence and the admissions
of respondent himself, we find that respondent’s act of engaging
in sex with a young lass, constitutes gross immoral conduct that
warrants sanction. The court held that the moral delinquency
that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as
such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes
a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that
a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any
deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he
is required to take before admission to the practice of law. It
bears to stress that membership in the Bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions. As a privilege bestowed by law
through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be
withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s
lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers. A lawyer
may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
The Supreme Court ruled against the respondent ordering his
disbarment for grossly immoral conduct.

Page 44 | 71
18.

AMPARO BUENO, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. RAMON A. RAÑESES, Respondents.
Adm. Case No. 8383 December 11, 2012

FACTS:
Bueno alleged that Atty. Rañeses asked for P10,000.00 to be
divided between him and Judge Nidea so that they would not
lose the case. Atty. Rañeses told Bueno not to tell anyone about
the matter. Bueno complied with such demand. Atty. Rañeses
asked for another P5,000.00 because the amount she had
previously given was inadequate which she again delivered to
Atty. Rañeses.
Bueno later discovered that the trial court had required Atty.
Rañeses to comment on the adverse party’s offer of evidence
and to submit their memorandum on the case, but Atty. Rañeses
failed to comply with the court’s directive. According to Bueno,
Atty. Rañeses concealed this development from her.
Atty. Rañeses never filed an answer against Bueno’s complaint.
He repeatedly failed to attend the hearings scheduled by
Commissioner Gonzaga on March 20, 2000, on May 11, 2000
and on October 2, 2000. During the hearing on October 2, 2000,
Commissioner Gonzaga issued an Order declaring Atty. Rañeses
in default. Bueno presented her evidence and was directed to file
a formal offer.
The IBP Board of Governors, Commissioner Limpingco
recommended that Atty. Rañeses be absolved of the charge of
negligence, but found him guilty of soliciting money to bribe a
judge. Thus, recommended that Atty. Rañeses be disbarred for

Page 45 | 71
failure to maintain his personal integrity and for failure to
maintain public trust.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but
reduced the penalty to indefinite suspension from the practice of
law.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Rañeses acted with negligence and is guilty of
bribery to a judge.

RULING:
The Court approves the IBP’s findings but resolves to disbar
Atty. Rañeses from the practice of law. According to Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers should serve
their clients with competence and diligence.
Also, the Court also stated that the respondent committed a
fraudulent exaction, and at the same time maligned both the
judge and the Judiciary. These are exacerbated by his cavalier
attitude towards the IBP during the investigation of his case; he
practically disregarded its processes and even lied to one of the
Investigating Commissioners regarding the notices given him
about the case. Further, the false claim made by Atty. Rañeses to
the investigating commissioners reveals his propensity for lying.
It confirms, to some extent, the kind of lawyer that Bueno’s
affidavits depict him to be. From these perspectives, Atty.
Rañeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on the "take,"
the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a
member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such
as these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all –
to all lawyers, their clients and the general public – that the

Page 46 | 71
Court will not hesitate to act decisively and with no quarters
given to defend the interest of the public, of our judicial system
and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these are not
compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the
Bar. Thus, the court ordered for the respondent's disbarment.

Page 47 | 71
VIOLATION OF THE
LAWYER’S OATH

Page 48 | 71
19.
A.C. No. 7430 February 15, 2012 MARTIN LAHM III and
JAMES P. CONCEPCION, Complainants,
vs.
LABOR ARBITER JOVENCIO Ll. MAYOR, JR.,
Respondent.

II. Facts

David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal

dismissal against the members of the Board of Trustees of
the International School, Manila for allegef gross
misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. He filed a
Verified Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction Against
the Respondents. The said Motion was set for hearing.
The respondent issued an order. On account of the Order
David Edward Toze was immediately reinstated and
assumed his former position as superintendent of the
International School Manila. The pending incidents with
the above-mentioned illegal dismissal case were not
resolved, however, the scheduled hearing for the issuance
of a preliminary injunction was postponed. The co-
respondents filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the
respondent instead issued an order requiring the parties to
appear in his office in order to thresh out Toze’s claim of
damages. The respondent maintains that in order to
prevent irreparable damage on the person of David
Edward Toze, and on account of the urgency of the
Verified Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary

Page 49 | 71
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction Against
the Respondents of David Edward Toze, and that the
counsel for respondents in the illegal dismissal case have
asked for a relatively long period of fifteen days for a
resetting, he found merit in issuing the Order dated
September 14, 2006 that requires the parties to maintain
the status quo ante.

II. Issue

Whether or not Labor Arbiter Mayor violated the

lawyer’s oath.

III. Ruling

The Supreme Court held the respondent guilty for the

gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Under the
2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiters
no longer have the authority to issue writs of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining orders. However,
the respondent, in violation of the said rule, vehemently
insist that he has the authority to issue writs of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Further, the
unfounded insistence of the respondent on his supposed
authority to issue writs of preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order, taken together with the delay
in the resolution of the said motion for reconsideration,
would clearly show that the respondent deliberately
intended to cause prejudice to the complainants. In
stubbornly insisting that he has the authority to issue writs,
the respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of

Page 50 | 71
Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes. He is suspended from the practice of law.
20.

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC.,

represented by GABRIEL H. ABAD, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RICHARD V. FUNK, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9094 August 15, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Richard
Funk. It alleged that Atty. Funk used to work as corporate
secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the
foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in
several criminal and civil cases.
Hocorma Foundation further alleged that on November 25, 2006
Atty. Funk filed an action for quieting of title and damages
against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute,
Inc. Atty. Funk did so, according to the foundation, using
information that he acquired while serving as its counsel in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and in
breach of attorney-client relationship.
After hearing, the Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.
Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility with the aggravating circumstance
of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances
against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD

Page 51 | 71
recommended Atty. Funk's suspension from the practice of law
for one year. On April 16, 2010 the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the CBD's report and recommendation.
Atty. Funk moved for reconsideration but the IBP Board of
Governors denied it on June 26, 2011.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent betrayed the trust and confidence of a
former client in violation of the CPR when he filed several
actions against such client on behalf of a new one.

RULING:
The court affirms the resolution of the Board of Governors.
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is
undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of
Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship
with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of
another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the foundation's
written consent.
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the
highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy
dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting
interests or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney may not,
without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client. This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest
intention on the erring lawyer's part does not make it
inoperative.

Page 52 | 71
The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his
former client's doings, whether documented or not, that he
would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and
confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their
relationship. It would simply be impossible for the lawyer to
identify and erase such entrusted knowledge with faultless
precision or lock the same into an iron box when suing the
former client on behalf of a new one.
Thus, the Court ruled that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year.

Page 53 | 71
VIOLATION OF THE
RULES OF COURT

Page 54 | 71
21.

A.C. No. 7940 April 24, 2012

RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R.NO.
161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF
COURT,
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, Respondent.

XIX. Facts:

Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of the Ozamis City

volleyball team, wrote Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes of
Ozamis City, requesting financial assistance for his team.
Mayor Fuentes approved the request and sent Abastillas’
letter to the City Treasurer for processing. Abastillas
eventually got the assistance for his volleyball team.
Meanwhile, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, then a Sangguniang
Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental, got a
photocopy of Abastillas’ letter and, using it, filed a
complaint with the against Ferraren for alleged illegal
disbursement of ₱10,000.00 in public funds. Aggrieved,
Ferraren filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint against
Atty. Pactolin for falsification of public document. On
November 12, 2003 the Sandiganbayan found Atty.
Pactolin guilty of falsification. Atty. Pactolin appealed to
this Court but on May 20, 2008 it affirmed his conviction.
Since the Court treated the matter as an administrative
complaint against him as well under Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court, it referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for appropriate action. Because

Page 55 | 71
complainant Ferraren neither appeared nor submitted any
pleading during the administrative proceedings before the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, on October 9, 2010 the
IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution that the case
against Atty. Pactolin be dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence.

XX. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Pactolin may be disbarred because

of a crime he committed involving moral turpitude.

XXI. Ruling

Yes. This Court upheld the finding of the

Sandiganbayan that the copy of Abastillas’ letter which
Atty. Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious.
Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation
regarding his possession and use of the falsified
Abastillas’ letter, this Court held that the Sandiganbayan
did not err in concluding that it was Atty. Pactolin who
falsified the letter. This Court relied on the settled rule that
in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in
possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger and therefore guilty of falsification. This Court’s
decision in said falsification case had long become final
and executory. This Court has ruled that the crime of
falsification of public document is contrary to justice,
honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral
turpitude. Atty. Pactolin is disbarred from the practice of
law.

Page 56 | 71
Page 57 | 71
VIOLATION OF THE
NOTARIAL LAW

Page 58 | 71
22.

AC No. 8254
February 15, 2012 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1310) NESA
ISENHARDT, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, Respondent.

Complainant alleged that on 14 September 2000

respondent notarized a Special Power Attorney (SPA)
supposedly executed by her. The SPA authorizes
complainant’s brother to mortgage her real property
located in Antipolo City. Complainant averred that she
never appeared before respondent. She maintained that it
was impossible for her to subscribe to the questioned
document in the presence of respondent on 14 September
2000 since she was in Germany at that time.
To support her contention, complainant presented a
certified true copy of her German passport and a
Certification from the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) indicating that she arrived in the
Philippines on 22 June 2000 and left the country on 4
August 2000. The passport further indicated that she
arrived again in the Philippines only on 1 July 2001.
Complainant submitted that because of respondent’s act,
the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged and later
foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.

II. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Real violated the Notarial Law.

Page 59 | 71
III. Ruling

As stated by the IBP Board of Governors, the findings of

the Investigating Commissioner are supported by
evidence on record, as well as applicable laws and rules.
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he made it appear that
complainant personally appeared before him and
subscribed an SPA authorizing her brother to mortgage
her property.

It cannot be overemphasized that a notary public should

not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is
the same person who executed it, personally appearing
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what
are stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is
the party’s free act.

The respondent is found guilty of the said act. He is

revoked by the Notarial Commission and suspended from
the practice of law.

Page 60 | 71
23.

A.C. No. 7880 April 11, 2012

WILLIAM HECTOR MARIA, Petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. WILFREDO R. CORTEZ, Respondents.

VII. Facts

William is a citizen of New Zealand, and married to

Ernita Villanueva-Maria. Sometime in September 2005,
the complainant and his wife Ernita took a vacation in
Ilocos Sur. they met Spouses Biteng who represented
themselves as caretakers of certain parcels of land
purportedly for sale in Ilocos Sur. Taking interest over the
same, Spouses Maria had the metes and bounds
surveyed and came to know that the properties were
separately registered under the names of Emmanuel’s
aunts. Being confronted with the issue on ownership,
Emmanuel presented an SPA allegedly signed by
Gundaway and Namnama, appointing him as their
attorney-in-fact in all transactions pertaining to the subject
properties. However, the complainant doubted the
authenticity of the document as it appeared to be a mere
photocopy. Spouses Biteng promised to send Spouses
Maria a duly signed SPA notarized in the USA. Relying on
their word, Ernita affixed her signature on the Deed of
Sale. Spouses Maria found out that Transfer Certificates
of Title over the subject properties have already been
issued in their names but were in the possession of the

Page 61 | 71
Spouses Biteng who refused to deliver to them due to
some misunderstanding. This prompted the Spouses
Maria to get in touch with Gundaway and Namnama in the
USA who told them that they did not execute any SPA in
favor of Emmanuel. The complainant came back to the
Philippines and reviewed all the pertinent documents
involved in the sale of the subject properties and noticed
that they were all notarized by the respondent.

VIII. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Cortez violated the Notarial Law.

IX. Ruling

Yes. The respondent is administratively liable for having

notarized the SPA in the absence of the alleged affiants
and without knowing whether or not the signatures
appearing therein belong to the supposed affiants. As it
appeared, the signatures were falsified considering that
Gundaway and Namnama were not aware of such SPA. It
was of no moment that such SPA was not utilized in
registering the sale as alleged by the respondent. The
mere fact that the respondent notarized such SPA with an
acknowledgement that these affiants have personally
appeared before him as a Notary Public when in fact, they
did not, makes the respondent administratively liable. Atty.
Cortez is reprimanded and disqualified from being
commissioned as Notary Public for six months.

Page 62 | 71
Page 63 | 71
Page 64 | 71
NO VIOLATION

Page 65 | 71
24.

JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MANUEL "LOLONG" M. LAZARO, ATTY.
EDWIN M. ESPEJO, ATTY. ABEL M. ALMARIO, ATTY.
MICHELLE B. LAZARO, ATTY. JOSEPH C. TAN, and
JOHN DOES, Respondents.
A.C. No. 9259 August 23, 2012

FACTS:
William Strong was arrested and detained by the Bureau of
Immigration for allegedly being involved in an international
gang and conspiracy in Brazil on fraud involving the creation of
hundreds of dollars in illegal securities. The Lazaro Law Office
represented by respondent and his associates accepted to handle
the deportation case.
Strong initiated giving the information that his deportation case
may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in partner Jasper
Rodica before the RTC against the Hillview Marketing
Corporation for recovery and possession and damages involving
a property they have in Boracay. Apparently, Rodica claimed
that respondent met with Atty. Tan, the lawyer of Rodica, to
discuss the settlement package on the deportation case they filed
against Strong on the condition that Rodica withdraws her
complaint from the RTC of Cebu.
On May 25, 2011 the Bureau of Immigration rendered a
judgment deporting Strong to leave the country. On June 6,
2011 Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her
complaint against Hillview. Rodica now alleges that after Strong
was deported and withdrawing the case before the RTC, she was

Page 66 | 71
deceived by the respondent for over settlement of 7 million
which was allegedly extorted from her after misrepresenting that
the withdrawal of the case before the RTC is only a part of the
settlement package. Rodica claims that respondent Atty. Lazaro
acted gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly
immoral conduct and violated of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether that act of the respondent constitutes gross and serious
misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The complaint for disbarment was dismissed. The court ruled
that Rodica failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of
the respondents. As a general rule, lawyers enjoy the
presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to clearly prove the allegations made against them.
The required quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence
which is an evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
On Rodica's claim with regards to the settlement package, the
court find it without merit because she withdrew her complaint
only after the deportation of Strong. It was also evident on
record that the said case was already dismissed even before the
deportation case was filed only she filed a motion for
reconsideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that her withdrawal
of the complaint is a settlement consideration regarding the
deportation case of Strong. On her claim to have paid 7 million
to the respondents, she failed to substantiate such claim despite

Page 67 | 71
showing off withdrawals from her bank account certain amount
of money after failing to prove that the said amount was paid to
the respondents. Moreover, the court held that Rodica is not a
client of Lazaro Law Office. They merely handled the
deportation case of Strong.

Page 68 | 71
25.

ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES, JR., Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-
ALZATE, Respondent.
Adm. Case No. 9058 November 14, 2012

FACTS:
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was his legal
counsel when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of
Dolores, Abra in the May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a
50-vote margin to Albert Z. Guzman, she filed in his behalf a
"Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Bangued, Abra; that the petition was dismissed for
being "fatally defective;" that several months later, she insisted
on filing a "Petition of Protest" in the RTC, but the petition was
also dismissed on the ground that it was already time-barred,
and on the further ground of forum shopping because the
certification against forum shopping was false; that the RTC
declared her as "professionally negligent;" that he again ran for
Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2010 elections,
and won; that he later learned that his political opponents
retained her as their counsel; that with him barely two months in
office, one Carlito Turqueza charged him with abuse of
authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Abra; that she represented Turqueza as counsel;
and that she intentionally made false and hurtful statements in
the memorandum she prepared in that administrative case in
order to attack him.

Page 69 | 71
Seares, Jr. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated
Canon 15, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for
prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering false and
hurtful allegations against him. Hence, he prays that she should
be disbarred.

ISSUE:
Whether that acts of Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate
constitutes incompetence and professional negligence, and a
violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests.

RULING:
The Court dismissed the complaint of Seares, Jr. The negligent
act of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to
a result that was highly prejudicial to the client’s interest.
Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on
a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a
required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal,
especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for
several extensions to file the pleading and offered several
excuses for his nonfeasance.
Also, we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally
negligent in respect of the filing and eventual dismissal of the
subsequent "Petition for Protest." The verification and
certification against forum shopping attached to the petition
contained handwritten superimpositions by Atty. Gonzales-
Alzate, but such superimpositions were apparently made only to
reflect the corrections of the dates of subscription and the
notarial document number and docket number for the

Page 70 | 71
verification and certification. If that was all there was to the
superimpositions, then there was nothing to support the trial
judge’s observation that the "cut and paste" method in preparing
the verification and certification for non-forum shopping
constituted "professional negligence" that proved fatal to her
client’s protest.

Page 71 | 71