NATURE OF THE PENALTY

TITLE OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ISSUES RULING CANON APPLIED
CHARGE IMPOSED

1. Donton vs Tansingco Disbarment for Peter Donton filed a criminal complaint for Whether or not Atty YES. In effect, he advised and assisted Stier Canon 1 and Rule Suspension of
(2006) serious misconduct estafa thru falsification of a public document Tansingco is guilty of in circumventing the Constitutional 1.02 6 months
and violation of against Duane Stier, Emelyn Maggay, and Atty violation of Canon 1 prohibition against foreign ownership of
canon 1, Rule 1.01, Emmanuel Tansingco, being the notary public and Rule 1.02. lands. Atty Tansingco had sworn to uphold Canon 1. A lawyer
and 1.02 who notarized the the Occupancy Agreement. the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath shall uphold the
Atty Tansingco nonetheless counter-charged and the Code when he prepared and Constitution, obey the
Donton for perjury, wherein he alleged that: notarized the Occupancy Agreement to laws of the land, and
evade the law against foreign ownership of promote respect for
Stier, the owner and a long-time resident of a lands. He used his knowledge of the law to law and legal
property in Cubao, and a US Citizen, agreed achieve an unlawful end. Such an act processes.
that the property be transferred in the name of amounts to malpractice in his office,
Donton. Stier nonetheless asked him to Rule 1.02 - A lawyer
prepare documents that will still guarantee his shall not counsel or
recognition as the actual owner despite the abet activities aimed
transfer of title in the name of Donton. Thus, he at defiance of the law
executed the Occupancy Agreement. or at lessening
confidence in the
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by legal system.
Donton.

GROUNDS:
1. Atty Tansingco’s act of preparing the
occupancy agreement, despite
knowledge that Stier cannot own real
property, is a serious misconduct and
deliberate violation of the Code.
2. The lawyer’s act of assisting Stier to
do something in violation of the law,
and carrying out a dishonest scheme.
DEFENSES:
1. The disbarment case case is upon the
instigation of the lawyer of Donton,
because he refused to serve as
Donton’s witness in the criminal
complaint he filed against Stier and
Maggay
2. He was already 76 and will retire as
soon as he finish his pending cases
3. His practice of law is his only means
 of support for his family and 6 minor
children.

2. Malcampo- Sin vs Sin Petition for Florence Malacampo- Sin and Phillip Sin Whether or not the NO. Throughout the trial in the lower court, Art. 48 Family Code The case was
(2001) declaration of nullity (Portugese Citizen) got married sometime in marriage may be the State did not participate in the remanded to
of marriage due to 1987. In 1994, Florence filed a complaint for declared null and proceedings. While the Fiscal filed with the In all cases of the trial court
psychological the declaration of nullity of their marriage. It void. trial court a manifestation that he found no annulment or for proper trial.
incapacity. was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by collusion between the parties, he did not declaration of
the CA. Hence, this appeal. actively participated therein. Other than absolute nullity of
entering his appearance at certain hearings marriage, the Court
of the case, nothing more was heard from shall order the
him. Neither did the presiding Judge take prosecuting attorney
any step to encourage the fiscal to contribute or fiscal assigned to it
to the proceeding. to appear on behalf of
the State to take
steps to prevent
collusion between the
parties and to take
care that evidence is
not fabricated or
suppressed.

3. Obusan vs Obusan Disbarment- adultery Before Generoso was admitted to the bar, while Whether or not Yes, he is guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of Disbarment
(1984) or grossly immoral working in Peoples Homesite and Housing Generoso is guilty of the Code of
conduct Corporation, he met Natividad Estabillo who grossly immoral Preciosa has proven his abandonment of her Professional
represented herself to be a widow. They had conduct and his adulterous relations with a married Responsibility
carnal relations and had a son (John). woman separated from her own husband.
However, Generoso later on found out that Generoso was not able to overcome such A lawyer shall not
Natividad’s first marriage was still subsisting evidence. engage in unlawful,
and undissolved. dishonest, immoral or
Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal deceitful conduct.
4 days after the birth of John, Generoso relations with a former paramour, a married
married Preciosa. During their marriage, while woman, falls within "that conduct which is
Preciosa was not in their house in Tondo, willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
Generoso asked permission to his mother-in- shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
law that he would take a vacation in his the good and respectable members of the
hometown in Daet. He never returned since community". As such, Generoso is guilty of
then. grossly immoral conduct.

Preciosa found out that Generoso was Moreover, it is evident in this case that he
cohabiting with Natividad in a house in Cubao. failed to maintain the highest degree of
As such, Preciosa filed the present case for morality expected and required of a member
disbarment. of the bar.
 Respondent’s defense:
1. Relationship with Natividad was terminated
when he married Preciosa.
2. He visited the Cubao house from time to time
but only for the purpose of giving financial
assistance to John.
3. He did not live with Natividad. He resided
with his sister San Francisco del Monte,
Quezon City.
4. He was constrained to leave the tondo
House because he could not endure the
nagging of his wife, their violent quarrels, her
absences from the conjugal home and her
interference with his professional obligations.

4. Terre vs Terre (1992) Disbarment - Grossly Dorothy and Jordan were fourth year high Whether or not Atty. YES. The acts of Jordan constitutes grossly Sec 27, Rule 138 Disbarment
Immoral Conduct school classmates. Dorothy was then married Jordan Terre is guilty immoral conduct. “A member of the bar
to Merlito Bercenilla. Dorothy and Jordan both of grossly immoral may be suspended or
moved to Manila to pursue their studies, Jordan conduct The defenses of Atty. Terre were spurious. removed for
as a law student at Lyceum University. Jordan, being a lawyer, knew or should have
known that his argument ran counter to the 1. Deceit
During that time, Jordan courted Dorothy but prevailing case law which holds that for 2. Malpractice
she declined saying that she was married. purposes of determining whether a person is or other
However, Jordan explained to her that their legally free to contract a second marriage, a gross
marriage was void ab initio since they are first judicial declaration that the first marriage was misconduct
cousins. Satisfied with that, Dorothy and Jordan null and void is essential. 3. Grossly
got married and in their marriage license, immoral
Jordan wrote ‘single’ as her status saying that Atty. Terre failed to meet the standard of conduct
since her marriage is void ab initio, there was moral fitness for membership in the legal 4. Concivtion of
no need to go to court to declare it as such. All profession. After living on her bounty and crime or
through their marriage state, Dorothy supported allowing her to spend for his schooling, he offense
Jordan. After getting her pregnant, Jordan left without any means for the safe delivery involving
disappeared and contracted a second of his own child. Further, he contracted a moral
marriage. second marriage with knowledge that the turpitude. “
first one was still subsisting. “He was
GROUNDS: unworthy of admission to the Bar in the first Grossly immoral
1. Abandonment of minor for leaving place.” conduct - a conduct
their child so corrupt and false
2. Leaving her without means for safe that it constitutes a
delivery of his own child criminal act or so
3. Contracting a second marriage and unprincipled or
living with such while their marriage disgraceful as to be
 was still subsisting reprehensible to a
high degree
DEFENSES:
1. Dorothy told him that Jason Terre was
not his child but Merlito’s.
2. He contracted her marriage with
Dorothy upon her representation that
she was single. He only discovered
later that she was married to another
and when he confronted her about it,
he drove him out of the conjugal
residence.
3. Believing in good faith that his
marriage was void, he contracted a
second marriage.

5. Delos Reyes vs Aznar Disbarment on the Rosario delos Reyes is a 2nd year medical Whether or not Atty YES. Atty. Aznar is guilty of Grossly Immoral Sec 27, Rule 138 Disbarment
(1989) ground of gross student at Southwestern University in Cebu, of Aznar may be Conduct. “A member of the bar
immorality which Atty Aznar was the chairman. disbarred. The evidence presented by Atty Aznar is may be suspended or
insufficient as to engender doubt as to the removed for
She alleges that when she failed in her offenses imputed upon him.Aside from the
Pathology subject, she approached Atty Aznar self- serving testimony of 2 witnesses, the 5. Deceit
who assured her that she would pass. Despite records are bereft of evidence to contradict 6. Malpractice
that, she failed. Atty Aznar later on told her that the material point. He could have done more or other
she must go with him in Manila. Otherwise, she than keep his silence. gross
will flank in all her subjects. misconduct
“It is the duty of the lawyer, whenever his 7. Grossly
They had carnal knowledge in Manila for moral character is put in issue, to satisfy the immoral
several times. Rosario then got pregnant and court that he is fit and proper person to enjoy conduct
was advised by Atty Aznar to abort the baby. the continued membership in the bar. Mere 8. Concivtion of
With the help of the friends of Atty Aznar, they denial is not enough. crime or
were able to perpetrate the abortion. offense
involving
GROUNDS: moral
1. Lustful desires of Atty Aznar to which turpitude. “
Delos Reyes consented on the threat
of failing her subjects Immoral Conduct:
2. Atty Aznar had her undergo forced willful, flagrant or
abortion shameless, which
shows moral
DEFENSES: indifference to the
1. Delos Reyes was a woman of loose opinion of the good
morality and respectable
 2. The complaint was a vengeance members of the
against him since he approved the community
recommendation of BOT’’s to bar
Delos Reyes for enrollment.

6. Sebastian vs Calis Disbarment - for Atty. Calis promised to process all necessary w/n atty calis is guilty Yes. Atty. CAlis deceived Sebastian by Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of DISBARMENT
(1999) unlawful, dishonest, documents required for Sebastian’s trip to USA of the charge assuring her that he could give her visa and the Code of
immoral or deceitful for a fee of 150K. travel documents, that depite the spurious Professional
conduct (rule 1.01) documents nothing untoward would happen, Responsibility
and violation of Atty. Calis furnished spurious travel documents that he would refund the fees in case
lawyers oath to Sebastian. Sebastian would be assuming the something went wrong. All for material gain. A lawyer shall not
name of one LIzzette Ferrer. Atty Calis assured Deception and other fraudulent acts by a engage in unlawful,
her that she has nothing to worry about for she lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. dishonest, immoral or
has been engaged in that business for a time. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They deceitful conduct.
Atty. CAlis even promise the return of her are unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s
money if something goes wrong relationship with others should be
characterized by the highest degree of good
Upon arrival in Singapore, Sebastian was faith, fairness and candor
apprehended and detained in prison for
carrying spurious travel documents.

When she was deported back to the

Philippines, she demanded the return of her
money.

Atty Calis made partial refund but when asked

for the remaining balance, he had already
transferred to an unknown residence with
intentions to evade responsibility.

7. Coronel vs Cunanan Disbarment Case for Coronel engaged the services of Atty. Cunanan Whether or not Atty YES. Canon1, 1.01, 1.02 SUSPENDED
(2015) a lawyer who for the transfer of OCT No. 9616 and TCT No. should be guilty of The proposal of "direct registration" was FOR 1 YEAR
proposes to his client T-71074, which are both registered in the name DECEIT, unquestionably unlawful, immoral and A lawyer shall uphold
a recourse or of their deceased grandparents, to her name MALPRACTICE, deceitful all at once. the Constitution, obey
remedy that is and to the names of her co-heirs. Atty. AND GROSS He made the proposal despite its patent the laws of the land
contrary to law Cunanan advised her that such transfer may be MISCONDUCT? illegality in order to take advantage of the and promote respect
effected by two means; by (1) “ordinary complainant's limited legal knowledge of the for law and legal
procedure” - involves the transfer by way of regular procedures for the transfer of title processes. He shall
execution of Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, under circumstances of intestacy. In other not engage in
publication, payment of capital gains tax, etc., words, he made her agree to the "direct unlawful, dishonest,
and registration with the Register of Deeds. registration" through deceitful immoral or deceitful
This procedure cost P56,ooo and will take misrepresentation. He then ignored the conduct; or counsel or
about 5 mos; by way of (2)"direct registration" - written demands from her, which forced her, abet activities aimed
 involves preparing documents upon advise of in the end, to finally charge him with at a defiance of the
the Register of Deeds and will involve an disbarment. He thereby abused his being a law or at a lessening
estimated cost to be negotiated with the lawyer to the hilt in order to cause not only of confidence in the
officials or employees of the Register of Deeds his client but also the public in general to legal system. He
to a flat amount of P50,000 and it will only take doubt the sincerity of the members of the should advise his
1 mo. or less. Law Profession, and consequently diminish client to uphold the
Coronel agreed that Atty. Coronel institutes the the public's trust and confidence in lawyers in law, not to violate or
“direct registration” and billed the former a general. disobey it.
package deal of P70,000 for which she paid. Conversely, he
Unfortunately, the complainant was not able to NB: An administrative case proceeds should not
obtain the title, resulting in demanding the independently from the interest, or lack recommend to his
respondent to return what she paid and despite thereof, of the complainant, who only sets client any recourse or
several demands to Atty. Cunanan, the same the case in motion through the filing of the remedy that is
remain unheeded. complaint. Upon her doing so, she becomes contrary to law, public
a witness to testify against the respondent policy, public order,
GROUND: lawyer. The disciplinary proceedings against and public morals.
The Atty employed deceit, malpractice, and the lawyer do not involve private interests,
gross misconduct. but only how the lawyer conducts himself in
his public and private lives.
DEFENSES:
He denied that there was deceit on his part
insisting that he clearly outlined to Complainant
the available procedures for the transfer of title
and afforded Complainant the opportunity to
think about the options. He claimed that there
was nothing illicit in suggesting the direct
registration scheme as the same was advised
to him by the officials and employees of the
Register of Deeds upon his inquiry thereto.
He also said that the transfer could not be
effected because the documents were
inadequate and due, also, to the fact that
several officials and employees of the Register
of Deeds with whom he was transacting were
transferred to other offices

8. Heenan vs Espejo Administrative Case Corazon Eusebio (godmother) told Victoria that Whether or not Atty YES. It has been settled that the deliberate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Suspension for
(2013) against Atty Espejo her lawyer Atty Espejo was in need of money Espejo is failure to pay just debts and issuance of and Canon 7, Rule 2 years.
for violation of and wanted to borrow 250 000. Victoria then administratively worthless checks constitutes gross 7.03, and Canon 11
Lawyer’s Oath. handed to Atty Espejo the money. To secure liable. misconduct, for which a lawyer must be
the obligation, she issued a check to Victoria. sanctioned. A lawyer has the duty to faithfully
perform at all times his duties to society, to Canon 1: A lawyer
 On due date, Atty Espejo requested Victoria to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. As shall uphold the
delay the deposit of check as he was still part of his duties, he must promptly pay his constitution, obey the
waiting for the proceeds of bank loan to fund financial obligations. laws of the land, ad
the check. Later, Atty Espejo gave another promote respect for
check for 50000 for the interest due to late The fact that Atty Espejo obtained the loan in the law and legal
payment. This check bounced due to her private capacity and not as a lawyer of processes.
insufficiency of fund. Victoria then deposited Victoria is of no moment. A lawyer must be Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
the first check which also bounced. disciplined not only for his malpractice and shall not engage in
dishonesty in his profession but also for unlawful, dishonest,
For its continued refusal to pay, Victoria gross misconduct outside of his professional immoral or deceitful
instituted a criminal complaint for Estafa capacity. While the court may not ordinarily conduct.
against Atty Espejo but the latter disregarded discipline a lawyer for conducts in his private Canon 7:A lawyer
the notices and subpeonas. She attended only capacity, the court may be justified in doing shall at all times
1 preliminary investigation and promised to so where his misconduct is so gross as to uphold the integrity
settle her obligation. She issued another check show him morally unfit and unworthy of the and dignity of the
but it also bunced. privileges which his license and the law legal profession and
confer. support the activities
Victoria instituted this administrative case of the integrated Bar.
before the IBP- CBD Her misconduct was further aggravated by
her unjustified refusal to obey the orders of Rule 7.03 - A lawyer
GROUND: the IBP ordering her to file an answer to the shall not engage in
Issuance of unfunded check complaint and appear at the conferences. conduct that
This constitutes blatant disrespect for the adversely reflects on
DEFENSES: None. Failed to file an answer and IBP which amounts to conduct unbecoming a his fitness to practice
appear at the Preliminary Conference lawyer. law, nor shall he
whether in public or
private life, behave in
a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Canon 11: A lawyer

shall observe and
maintain the respect
due to the courts and
to judicial offices and
should insist on
similar conduct by
others.

9. Fabugais vs Facundo Complaint filed Marie Nicole, daughter of complainant, alleged Did respondent YES. Canon 7: A lawyer SUSPENDED
(2018) against Atty. Berardo that sometime in October 2006, she, along with lawyer in fact commit shall at all times FOR 1
C. Faundo, Jr. for her mother, Annaliza and 2 female companions acts that are grossly In the present case, going by the eyewitness uphold the integrity MONTH
gross misconduct stayed in a house in Ipil, Zamboanga-Sibugay, immoral, or acts that testimony of complainant's daughter Marie and dignity of the
and conduct that belonged to respondent lawyer. Marie amount to serious Nicole, raw or explicit sexual immorality legal profession, and
unbecoming of a Nicole said that when night-time fell, moral depravity, that between respondent lawyer and support the activities
lawyer for having respondent lawyer slept in the same bed with would warrant or call complainant's wife was not established as a of the Integrated Bar.
allegedly engaged her and her mother and that she saw for his disbarment or matter of fact. Indeed, to borrow the
in illicit and respondent lawyer embracing her mother while suspension from the Investigating Commissioner's remark: "[o]ne Rule 7.03:A lawyer
immoral relations they were sleeping. practice of law? would need to inject a bit of imagination to shall not engage in
with his wife, create an image or something sexual." conduct that
Annaliza Lizel B. Marie Nicole further recounted that the next adversely reflects on
Fabugais morning, while she was watching television That said, it can in no wise or manner be his fitness to practice
along with her mother, Ate Mimi and Ate Ada, argued that his behavior was par for the law, nor should he,
respondent lawyer who just had a shower, and course for members of the legal profession. whether in public or
clad only in a towel or "tapis," suddenly entered Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar private life, behave in
the room; that she along with her Ate Mimi and at all times and to help maintain the respect a scandalous manner
her Ate Ada, were told to step outside the room of the community for the legal profession to the discredit of the
(either by respondent lawyer, or by her mother under all circumstances legal profession.
Annaliza), while her mother and respondent "There is perhaps no
lawyer remained inside the room. The acts complained of in this case might not profession after that
be grossly or starkly immoral in its rawness of the sacred ministry
Because of these developments, complainant or coarseness, but they were without doubt in which a high-toned
filed a case for the declaration of nullity of his condemnable. He who made avowals to morality is more
marriage with Annaliza, with prayer for the being a respectable father to three children, imperative than that
custody of their minor children. In said case, and also to being a respected leader of his of the law. As officers
respondent lawyer entered his appearance as community apparently had no qualms or of the court, lawyers
collaborating counsel for Annaliza scruples about being seen sleeping in his must in fact and in
own bed with another man's wife, his arms truth be of good moral
Complainant moreover narrated that, while he entwined in tender embrace with the latter. character. They must
was driving his motorcycle along the San Jose His claim that he was inspired by nothing but moreover also be
Road in Baliwasan, Zamboanga City, the best of intentions in inviting another seen or appear to be
respondent lawyer, who was then riding in married man's wife and her 10-year old of good moral
tandem in another motorcycle with his own daughter to sleep with him in the same bed character; and be
driver, slowed down next to him (complainant) so that the three of them could enjoy good seen or appear to –
and yelled at him angrily, "Nah, cosa man?!" night's rest in his airconditioned chamber, live a life in
("So, what now?!"); that he (complainant) also reeks with racy, ribald humor. accordance with the
noticed that he kept following and shouting at highest moral
him (complainant), and even challenged him to And in aggravation or the aforementioned standards of the
a fistfight, and threatened to kill him. unseemly behavior, He apparently community.
experienced neither qualms nor scruples at
DEFENSES: all about exploding into the room occupied "Immoral conduct"
He asserted that in the chasing incident it was by a married man's wife and her 10-year old has been defined as
in fact complainant himself who stared daughter and their two other women that conduct which is
menacingly at him while he was riding a companions clad with nothing else but a so willful, flagrant, or
motorcycle in tandem with his driver. "tapis" or a towel. Indeed, He seemed to shameless as to show
He denied that he had had any immoral have forgotten that there are rules other men indifference to the
 relations with Annaliza. He claimed that he was – decent men, – live by. opinion of good and
merely assisting Annaliza in her tempestuous respectable members
court battle with complainant for custody of her His defense that he was a "respectable of the community.This
children. He asserted that when Marie Nicole's father with three children" and that he was a Court has held that
maternal grandmother, sought out his help in "respected civic leader" to boot, flies in the for such conduct to
this case, he told them that they could hide in face of a young girl's perception of his warrant disciplinary
his parents' house in Ipil. diminished deportment. action, the same must
He insisted that he was incapable of committing be "grossly immoral,
the misconduct imputed to him for three simple that is, it must be so
reasons to wit: because he is a good father to corrupt and false as
his three children, because he is a respected to constitute a
civic leader, and because he had never been criminal act or so
the subject even of a complaint with the police. unprincipled as to be
He claimed that complainant filed the instant reprehensible to a
complaint simply "to harass him from practicing high degree."
his legitimate profession, and for no other
reason.

10. Constantino vs Complaint- affidavit Atty. Saludares borrowed 1000 from Luis, Jr. Whether or not the YES. By his failure to present convincing Canon 1.01 Suspension for
Saludares (1993) charging Atty. because of an urgent personal obligation, and acts of Atty evidence that will justify his non-payment, A lawyer must not 3 months, with
Prudencio promising to pay the day after. Saludares not to mention his indifference to the engage in unlawful, warning that a
Saludares with constitutes conduct complaint brought against him, made immoral, o deceitful repetition of
Conduct He failed to pay, even after several demands. unbecoming an apparent by his unreasonable absence from conduct. the same or
Unbecoming a Luis Jr. thereafter left the county and officer of the court, the proceedings before the OSG, he failed to any other
Lawyer (Initially filed authorized his father (complainant herein) to warranting a demonstrate that he still possessed the *Atty Saludares, in misconduct will
with the Civil collect from Atty. Saludares who continues to disciplinary action. integrity and morality demanded of a failing to honor his be dealt with
Relations Office of refuse to pay. He then sought the assistance of member of Bar. debts, constituted more severly.
AFP, which was the AFP CRO by filing a complaint affidavit. dishonest and
subsequently GROUND: Even assuming that Luis Jr failed to appear immoral conduct.
endorsed to the SC, By abusing the trust and confidence of his son, on the appointed place of payment, several
which endorsed it to he was able to secure a loan which he demands were subsequently made. If he
the OSG for unjustifiably refuses to pay, despite demand- intended to settle his indebtedness, he could
investigation and CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER OF have done so in several instances payment
report. THE COURT AND VIOLATION OF HIS OATH was demanded of him. This only shows that
OF OFFICE he really had no intention to pay. Such
conduct, is unbecoming, and does not speak
DEFENSES: well of a member of the Bar. A lawyer’s
1. Complaint was without basis and professional and personal conduct must at
malicious in character all times be kept beyond reproach.
2. He was unable to pay because Luis Jr
failed to appear on the appointed He failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer
place of payment in consonance with the strictures of the
3. He cannot pay because Luis was out lawyer’s oath, CPR, and Canons of
 of the country Professional Ethics, thereby degrading not
only his person, but his profession as well.

11. Navarro v. Atty. Disbarment due to Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr. (respondent) and Whether respondent YES. It is clear that respondent violated Rule Rule 1.01. - A lawyer Disbarment for
Solidum (2014) estafa and violation Presbitero entered a retainer agreement for the violated Rule 1.01. 1.01 of the Code of Professional shall not engage in violating the 4
of Batas Pambansa release of the payment of the latter’s 2.7- Responsibility. unlawful, dishonest, canons and
Blg. 22. hectare property located in Bacolod which was The Court have ruled that conduct, as used immoral or deceitful ORDERED to
the subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to in the Rule, is not confined to the conduct. return the
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). performance of a lawyer’s professional advances he
Respondent and Presbitero agreed to an duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for CANON 16. - A received from
attorney’s fee of 10% of the proceeds from the misconduct committed either in his LAWYER SHALL Hilda S.
VOS or the sale of the property, with the professional or private capacity. The test is HOLD IN TRUST ALL Presbitero,
expenses to be advanced by Presbitero but whether his conduct shows him to be MONEYS AND amounting to
deductible from respondent’s fees. Respondent wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, PROPERTIES OF ₱50,000.
received ₱50,000 from Presbitero, supposedly and good demeanor, or whether it renders HIS CLIENT THAT
for the expenses of the case, but nothing came him unworthy to continue as an officer of the MAY COME INTO
out of it. court. HIS POSSESSION.

Presbitero’s daughter, Ma. Theresa P. Yulo In this case, the loan agreements with Rule 16.01 – A lawyer
(Yulo), also engaged respondent’s services to Navarro were done in respondent’s private shall account for all
handle the registration of her 18.85-hectare lot capacity. Although Navarro financed the money or property
located in Negros. Yulo convinced her sister, registration of Yulo’s lot, respondent and collected or received
Navarro, to finance the expenses for the Navarro had no lawyer-client relationship. for or from the client.
registration of the property. Respondent However, respondent was Presbitero’s
undertook to register the property in counsel at the time she granted him a loan. It Rule 16.04. - A lawyer
consideration of 30% of the value of the was established that respondent misled shall not borrow
property once it is registered. Respondent Presbitero on the value of the property he money from his client
obtained ₱200,000 from Navarro for the mortgaged as a collateral for his loan from unless the client’s
registration expenses but Navarro was her. To appease Presbitero, respondent interests are fully
dissatisfied because it was registered to even made a Deed of Undertaking that he protected by the
Teodoro Yulo. would give her another 1,000-square-meter nature of the case or
lot as additional collateral but he failed to do by independent
Respondent also obtained two loans of so. advice. Neither shall a
₱1,000,000 each from Navarro to finance his lawyer lend money to
sugar trading business. Respondent and Clearly, respondent is guilty of engaging in a client except, when
Navarro executed a Memorandum of dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his in the interest of
Agreement (MOA) and agreed that the loan (a) professional capacity with respect to his justice, he has to
shall be for a period of one year; (b) shall earn client, Presbitero, and in his private capacity advance necessary
interest at the rate of 10% per month; and (c) with respect to complainant Navarro. Both expenses in a legal
shall be secured by a real estate mortgage over Presbitero and Navarro allowed respondent matter he is handling
a property located in Barangay Alijis, Bacolod
City. They also agreed that respondent shall
issue postdated checks to cover the principal
amount of the loan as well as the interest
thereon.
At the same time, respondent obtained a loan
of ₱1,000,000 from Presbitero covered by a
third MOA, except that the real estate mortgage
was over a 263-square-meter property located
in Barangay Taculing, Bacolod City.
Respondent also sent Presbitero postdated
checks. Presbitero asked for additional
security, however, respondent did not execute
a deed for the additional security.
to draft the terms of the loan agreements. for the client.
Respondent drafted the MOAs knowing that
the interest rates were exorbitant. Later,
using his knowledge of the law, he assailed
the validity of the same MOAs he prepared.
He issued checks that were drawn from his
son’s account whose name was similar to his
without informing complainants. Further,
there is nothing in the records that will show
that respondent paid or undertook to pay the
loans he obtained from complainants.

Respondent paid the loan interest for the first

few months amounting to ₱900,000.
Thereafter, he failed to pay either the principal
amount or the interest thereof and the acoount
where the checks were drawn were already
closed. Hence, he promised to pay the agreed
interest but asked for a reduction of the interest
to 7% for the succeeding months.
Subsequently, respondent withdrew as counsel
for Yulo. On the other hand, Presbitero
terminated the services of respondent as
counsel. Complainants then filed petitions for
the judicial foreclosure of the mortgages
executed by respondent in their favor and
cases for estafa and B.P. 22.

GROUNDS:
Complainants alleged that respondent induced
them to grant him loans by offering very high
interest rates, and that the checks turned out to
be drawn against his son’s accounts, that
respondent deceived them regarding the
identity and value of the property he mortgaged
because he showed them a different property.

DEFENSES:
Respondent countered that the 10% monthly
interest on the loan was usurious and illegal.
 Respondent claimed that the property he
mortgaged to Navarro was valuable and it was
actually worth more than ₱8,000,000.

12. Mercullo vs Ramon Disbarment due to National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Whether or not Atty Yes, Atty. Ramon is guilty of violating the a. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Suspension
(2016) the alleged (NHMFC) sent several demand letters to Ramon is guilty of aforesaid rule and Lawyer’s oath. She is of the Code of from the
deception committed Carmelita T. Vedano regarding her unpaid violating Rule 1.01 of guilty of dishonesty and deceit. Professional practice of law
by Atty. Ramon obligations secured by the mortgage covering the CPR and the Responsibility for 5 years
against Verlita V. her residential property in Novaliches, Lawyer’s oath effective from
Mercullo and Caloocan City. When Atty Ramon received money from the A lawyer shall not notice with
Raymond Vedano complainants after having made them engage in unlawful, stern warning
when Atty Ramon To avoid the foreclosure of the mortgage, believe that she could assist them in dishonest, immoral or
obtained P350,000 Verlita and Raymond inquired from the NHMFC ensuring the redemption in their mother's deceitful conduct. Return
for purposes of about the status of the obligations and found behalf, Atty Ramon transgressed the P350,000 with
“redeeming the out that total arrears is P350,000.00, and that Lawyer’s oath. She used the fact that she b. Lawyer's Oath 6% legal
foreclosed asset of their account was under the charge of Atty. was working in the NHFMC to make the interest per
the latter’s mother” Ramon. complainants believe. She did not inform annum
them soon enough that she had ceased to
After some time, Carmelita received a letter be connected with it when she has the duty Penalty as
from the sheriff stating that her property would to do so. She further misled them about her recommended
be put up for auction. Verlita and Raymond ability to realize the redemption by falsely by IBP:
thus went to Atty Ramon who advised them informing them about having started the Suspension of
about their right of redemption. In a meeting, redemption process. She took advantage of 2 years from
Atty Ramon oriented them on the procedure for the complainants who had reposed their full practice of law
redemption and obtained the P350,000.00 in trust and confidence in her ability to perform and return of
exchange of a signed acknowledgment receipt. the task by virtue of her being a lawyer. P350,000.
Her NHMFC identification card was also Everything she did was dishonest and However, the
presented. She further promised to inform them deceitful in order to have them part with the SC ruled that
as soon as the documents for redemption were substantial sum of P350,000.00. the
ready for their mother's signature. It is also to be noted that Atty Ramon’s recommended
unfulfilled promise of returning the money penalty is not
Subsequently, Verlita and Raymond went to the and her refusal to communicate with the commensurate
NHMFC to follow up on the redemption, but complainants aggravated the neglect and to the gravity
discovered that Atty Ramon had already dishonesty attending her dealings with the of the
ceased to be connected with the NHMFC. complainants. misconduct
When contacted. Atty Ramon informed them committed.
that the redemption was under process, and Another dereliction of Atty Ramon that might She had
that the certificate of redemption would be have aggravated things was her wanton caused
issued in 2 to 3 weeks. disregard of the several notices sent to her material
by the IBP. It reflected her undisguised prejudice to
Verlita and Raymond then went to the the RTC contempt of the proceedings of the IBP. She the clients'
 to inquire on the status of the redemption. They exhibited her irresponsibility as well as her interest.
discovered that Atty Ramon had not deposited utter disrespect for the Court and the rest of Moreover, the
the redemption price and had not filed the letter the Judiciary. usual
of intent for redeeming the property. mitigation of
NOTES/ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: the
Consequently, Verlita and Raymond demanded The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the recommended
the return of the amount. Atty Ramon promised obligations and duties of every lawyer. Every penalty by
to return the money by depositing the amount lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity virtue of the
in Verlita's bank account. However, she did not and moral fiber. Any conduct unbecoming of misconduct
fulfill her promise. They cannot also anymore a lawyer constitutes a violation of his oath. being her first
reached her. As such, the present case for offense cannot
disbarment was filed. Evil intent was not essential in order to be carried out
bring the unlawful act or omission of the in her favor
a lawyer within the coverage of Rule 1. 01 considering
of the Code of Professional that she had
Responsibility. The Code exacted from her disregarded
not only a firm respect for the law and legal the several
processes but also the utmost degree of notices sent to
fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients her by the IBP
and the moneys entrusted by them pursuant in this case.
to their fiduciary relationship.

13. Chu vs Atty. Guico Disbarment - for Chu retained Atty. Guco as counsel to handle Did Atty. Guico YES. 1) CANON 1 — A DISBARMENT
gross misconduct an illegal dismissal case filed against his violate the Lawyer’s lawyer shall uphold
company CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation. Oath and Rules 1.01 1) He violated the law against bribery and the constitution, obey
and 1.02, Canon I of corruption. Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly the laws of the land
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision adverse the Code of violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu and promote respect
to CVC. Professional to raise the large sums of money in order to for law and for legal
Responsibility for obtain a favorable decision in the labor processes.
Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial demanding and case.He compounded his violation by
amount of money to be given to the NLRC receiving actually using said illegality as his means of Rule 1.01 — A lawyer
Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a ₱580,000.00 from obtaining a huge sum from the client that he shall not engage in
favorable decision. Chu to guarantee a soon appropriated for his own personal unlawful, dishonest,
favorable decision interest. His acts constituted gross immoral or deceitful
Chu delivered 300K to Atty. Guico’s assistant, from the NLRC? dishonesty and deceit, and were a conduct.
Nardo, for the said purpose. flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath Rule 1.02 — A lawyer
Subsequently, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy not to delay any man for money or shall not counsel or
of the alleged draft decision of the NLRC malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code abet activities aimed
decision in favor of CVC. the decision was of Professional Responsibility that at defiance of the law
printed on a paper apparently emanating from forbade him from engaging in unlawful, or at lessening
the office of Atty.Guico. dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. confidence in the
Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct legal system.
 Atty. Guico asked Chu to raised another 300k and disgraced the Legal Profession
to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue 2) LAWYER’S OATH
the decision. But Chu could only produce 280k The sworn obligation to respect the law and
which he subsequently delivered to Nardo. the legal processes under the Lawyer’s Oath x x x maintain
and the Code of Professional Responsibility allegiance to the
The NLRC however, promulgated a decision is a continuing condition for every lawyer to Republic of the
adverse to CVC. and so CHu terminated Atty. retain membership in the Legal Profession. Philippines; x x x
Guico as counsel. To discharge the obligation, every lawyer support its
should not render any service or give advice Constitution and obey
DEFENSE: to any client that would involve defiance of the laws as well as
the very laws that he was bound to uphold the legal orders of the
The charge was only meant for harassment. and obey, for he or she was always bound as duly constituted
Atty. Guico denied demanding and having an attorney to be law abiding, and thus to authorities therein; x x
received money from Chu. He further denied uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal x do no falsehood,
handing to Chu the draft decision. He said that Profession. Verily, he or she must act and nor consent to the
the paper where the decision was printed must comport himself or herself in such a manner doing of any in court;
have been among those freely lying around in that would promote public confidence in the x x x delay no man for
his office that had been pilfered by Chu’s integrity of the Legal Profession. Any lawyer money or malice x x
witnesses. found to violate this obligation forfeits his or x.
her privilege to continue such membership in
the legal profession.

++ Atty. Guico offered only his general denial

of the allegations in his defense, but such
denial did not overcome the affirmative
testimony of Chu. but Despite denying being
the source of the draft decision presented by
Chu, Atty. Guico’s participation in the
generation of the draft decision was
undeniable. For one, Atty. Guico impliedly
admitted Chu’s insistence by conceding that
the used paper had originated from his
office, claiming only that used paper was just
"scattered around his office. therefore, Atty.
Guico made the implied admission because
he was fully aware that the used paper had
unquestionably come from his office.

14. Ui vs Bonifacio Disbarment case Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui on January 24, 1. Whether or 1. NO. Canon 1, Canon 7, REPRIMAND
(2000) against Atty. Iris 1971 and as a result of their marital union, they not Atty. Iris The acts of the respondent leads us to an Rule 7.03
Bonifacio for had four 4 children all surnamed Ui. Sometime should be inescapable conclusion that respondent was
allegedly carrying on in December 1987, however, complainant disbarred imprudent in managing her personal affairs.
an immoral found out that her husband, Carlos Ui, was
relationship with carrying on an illicit relationship with
Carlos Ui, husband respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he
of the complainant begot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that
Leslie Ui. they had been living together at Ayala Alabang
Village in Muntinlupa City.
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his
relationship with the respondent. Complainant
then visited respondent at her office in the later
part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the
legal wife of Carlos Ui and there the wife found
out that indeed the respondent and Carlos had
a child but their relationship was over.
However, complainant again discovered that
the illicit relationship between her husband and
respondent continued, and that sometime in
December 1988, respondent and her husband,
Carlos Ui, had a second child. Complainant
then met again with respondent sometime in
March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to
discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui
but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted
and complainant even came to know later on
that respondent had been employed by her
husband in his company.
Grounds:
Immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an
illicit relationship with the complainants
husband, Carlos Ui
Defense:
Although the respondent had knowledge
Carlos’ children, with regard to their mother
what she only know is that she is a chinese
woman who Carlos had long been estranged.
Carlos also introduce himself as a bachelor all
throughout their courtship and in fact they were
married in Hawaii in 1985 prior to the birth of
their first child and when she found out the truth
regarding Carlos he severed all ties with him
but still allowed the latter to have contact with
their children.
by reason However, the fact remains that her
of relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was
immorality? with what respondent believed was a valid
2. Whether or marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For
not Atty. Iris immorality connotes conduct that shows
should be indifference to the moral norms of society
penalize for and the opinion of good and respectable
attaching an members of the community.Moreover, for
altered such conduct to warrant disciplinary action,
marriage the same must be "grossly immoral," that is,
certificate in it must be so corrupt and false as to
her constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as
answer? to be reprehensible to a high degree.
We have held that "a member of the Bar and
officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships x x x but
must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief
that he is flouting those moral standards."
Respondents act of immediately distancing
herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his
true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high
moral standard of the legal profession.
Complainants bare assertions to the contrary
deserve no credit. After all, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary powers
only if she establishes her case by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence. This,
herein complainant miserably failed to do.
2. YES.
We find improbable to believe the averment
of respondent that she merely relied on the
photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which
was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an event
as significant as a marriage ceremony, any
normal bride would verily recall the date and
year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom
how a bride, especially a lawyer as in the
case at bar, can forget the year when she
got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to
 human experience and highly improbable.
Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would
verify the information contained in an
attachment to her pleading, especially so
when she has personal knowledge of the
facts and circumstances contained therein.
In attaching such Marriage Certificate with an
intercalated date, the defense of good faith
of respondent on that point cannot stand.

15. De Ysasi v. NLRC The conduct of the respective counsel of the

(1994) parties, as revealed by the records, sorely
disappoints the Court and invites reproof.
Both counsel may well be reminded that their
ethical duty as lawyers to represent their
clients with zeal goes beyond merely
presenting their clients' respective causes in
court.

It is just as much their responsibility, if not

more importantly, to exert all reasonable
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts,
preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate
consanguineous ties between their clients.

Once again, the Court reiterate that the

useful function of a lawyer is not only to
conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever
possible by advising settlement or
withholding suit. He is often called upon less
for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise
counsel in every phase of life. He should be
a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, rather than a virtuoso of
technicality in the conduct of litigation.

Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a)
lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid,
end or settle the controversy if it will admit of
a fair settlement."
 On this point, the Court find that both
counsel herein fell short of what was
expected of them, despite their avowed
duties as officers of the court. The records
do not show that they took pains to initiate
steps geared toward effecting a
rapprochement between their clients. On the
contrary, their acerbic and protracted
exchanges could not but have exacerbated
the situation even as they may have found
favor in the equally hostile eyes of their
respective clients.

16. Ana Chua and Disbarment - Gross Complainants were lesses of the property Whether or not Atty. YES. Atty Mesina is guilty of gross Canon 1. A lawyer Disbarment
Marcelina Hsia vs Atty. Misconduct owned by Atty. Mesina. Atty. Mesina’s mother Mesina is guilty of misconduct when it advised Complainants to shall uphold the
Simeon M. Mesina, Jr. failed to pay her obligation to the Bank, hence gross misconduct execute another DOAS to evade payment of constitution, obey the
they asked the Complainants to help them the CGT. It violated his duty to promote laws of the land and
settle the account, to which they agreed. In respect for law and legal processes. When promote respect for
consideration, the properties leased will be he asked that they execute a simulated law and legal
transferred in their names. A Deed of Absolute DOAS, he committed dishonesty. When he processes.
Sale was executed in favor of Complainants. asked for the owner’s certificate of title upon
the misrepresentation that he would return it Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
To evade the payment of Capital Gains Tax, in 4 months, he committed dishonesty. shall not engage in
Atty. Mesina suggested that they execute an unlawful, dishonest,
antedated DOAS, to a year prior to the A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his immoral or deceitful
effectivity of the law mandating the payment of client but the business transaction must be conduct.
CGT. Later, they again executed a simulated characterized with utmost good faith and
DOAS in favor of Mesina’s mother to reflect honesty. However, in this case, Atty Mesina Rule 1.02 - A lawyer
that it was reconveyed to them, with a promise violated his oath of office. shall not counsel or
that it will be transferred to their names again. abet activities aimed
Further, Mesina borrowed the owner’s at defiance of the law
certificate of title but it was never returned. The or at lessening
complainants then found out that the property confidence in the
was being offered for sale to the public. legal system.

GROUNDS:
Complainants were asking for the
reconveyance of the property as they are
already the owners.

DEFENSES:
None. The respondent did not participate in the
 proceedings before the IBP

17. Rosa Paras vs. Atty. Disbarment- This has reference to a case for disbarment Whether or not ON THE CHARGE OF FALSIFYING Canon 1 - A lawyer SUSPENDED
Justo Paras 1.dishonesty, initiated by complainant Rosa Yap Paras respondent is guilty DOCUMENTS shall uphold the from the
falsification and against her husband, Atty. Justo de Jesus of grossly immoral Constitution, obey the practice of
fraud, Paras.Rosa Paras charged her husband with conduct. laws of the land and law for SIX
2.grossly immoral dishonesty and falsification of public To explain this anomaly, respondent legal processes. (6) MONTHS
conduct and documents, harassment and intimidation, and presented a Special Power of Attorney on the charge
concubinage, immorality for siring a child with another (SPA) executed in his favor by Rule 1.01 a lawyer of falsifying
3. Unethical and woman. Respondent denied the allegations, complainant to negotiate for an shall not engage in his wife’s
unprofessional contending that his wife, in cahoots with her agricultural or crop loan from the Bais unlawful , dishonest, signature in
conduct family, is out to destroy and strip him of his Rural Bank of Bais City. Instead of immoral or deceitful bank
4. Obstruction of share in their multi-million conjugal assets. exculpating respondent, the presence of conduct. documents
justice The parties come from wealthy families in the SPA places him in hot water. For if he and other
Negros Oriental. They were married on May 21, was so authorized to obtain loans from Canon 7 A lawyer related loan
1964 and have two grown-up children. They the banks, then why did he have to falsify shall at all times instruments;
have vast sugarlands and other his wife’s signatures in the bank loan uphold the integrity and for ONE
businesses.Respondent was a Municipal Judge documents? The purpose of an SPA is to and dignity of the (1) YEAR
for 14 years and served as Mayor in their town especially authorize the attorney-in-fact legal profession and from the
for 2 terms during the administration of to sign for and on behalf of the principal support the activities practice of
President Aquino. Complainant is a using his own name. of the integrated bar. law on the
businesswoman. Sometime in 1988, their Rule 7.03 a lawyer charges of
marriage fell apart when due to "marital strain shall not engage in immorality
that has developed through the years," conduct that and
respondent left his wife and children to live with adversely reflects on abandonment
his mother and sister in Dumaguete City and ON THE CHARGE OF IMMORALITY his fitness to practice of his own
thence started his law practice. Complainant, in law nor shall he, family, the
the meantime, filed a case for the dissolution of AND CONCUBINAGE whether in public or penalties to
their marriage, which case is still pending in private life, behave in be served
court. The evidence against respondent is scandalous manner to simultaneousl
GROUNDS: overwhelming. The affidavit statements the discredit of the y.
1. DISHONESTY, FALSIFICATION and of his children and three other persons legal profession.
FRAUD who used to work with him and have
respondent obtained loans from certain witnessed the acts indicative of his
banks in the name of complainant by infidelity more than satisfy this Court that
counterfeiting complainant's signature, respondent has strayed from the marital
falsely making it appear that complainant path. The baptismal certificate of Cyndee
was the applicant for said loans. Rose Paras where respondent was named
Thereafter, he carted away and as the father of the child (Annex "J",
misappropriated the proceeds of the Rollo, p. 108); his naming the child after
loans. his deceased first-born daughter Cyndee
. . . to guarantee the above loans, respondent Rose; and his allowing Jocelyn Ching and
mortgaged some personal properties belonging the child to live in their house in
Dumaguete City bolster the allegation
to the conjugal partnership without the consent that respondent is carrying on an illicit
of complainant. affair with Ms. Ching, the mother of his
2. GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT AND illegitimate child.
chan rob1e s virtua1 1aw 1ib rary

CONCUBINAGE
Respondent is . . . engaged in the immoral and It is a time-honored rule that good moral
criminal act of concubinage as he maintained character is not only a condition
an illicit relationship with one Ms. Jocelyn A. precedent to admission to the practice of
Ching, siring an illegitimate child with her while law. Its continued possession is also
married to complainant. essential for remaining in the practice of
3. UNETHICAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL law (People v. Tunda, 181 SCRA 692
CONDUCT [1990]; Leda v. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395
Respondent abused courts of justice and [1992]). In the case at hand, respondent
misused his legal skills to frighten, harass and has fallen below the moral bar when he
intimidate all those who take a position forged his wife’s signature in the bank
diametrically adverse to his sinister plans by loan documents, and, sired a daughter
unethically filing complaints and other with a woman other than his wife.
pleadings against them. He utilized strategies
to obstruct justice. However, the power to disbar must be
4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE exercised with great caution, and only in
(Respondent) utilized strategies to obstruct a clear case of misconduct that seriously
justice. In the criminal actions initiated against affects the standing and character of the
him, respondent used his legal skills not to lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
prove his innocence but to derail all the member of the bar (Tapucar v. Tapucar,
proceedings. Adm. Case No. 4148, July 30, 1998).
DEFENSES: Disbarment should never be decreed
(1) On the Charge of Falsification of Public where any lesser penalty, such as
Documents: temporary suspension, could accomplish
That during the sugarboom in the 1970's, his the end desired (Resurrecion v. Sayson,
wife executed in his favor a Special Power of 300 SCRA 129 [1998]).
Attorney to negotiate for an agricultural or crop
loan authorizing him "to borrow money and
apply for and secure any agricultural or crop
loan for sugar cane from the Bais Rural Bank,
Bais City . . ."
(2) On the Charge of Forgery:
That the Report of the National Bureau of
Investigation which found that "the questioned
signatures (referring to the alleged forged
signatures of complainant) and the standard
sample signatures JUSTO J. PARAS were
written by one and the same person"(Annex
"B" of the Complaint, Rollo, p. 26) was
doctored, and that his wife filed against him a
string of cases for falsification of public
 documents because he intends to disinherit his
children and bequeath his inchoate share in the
conjugal properties to his own mother.
(3) On the Charge of Grossly Immoral Conduct
and Concubinage:
That this is a malicious accusation fabricated
by his brother-in-law, Atty. Francisco D. Yap to
disqualify him from getting any share in the
conjugal assets. He cites the dismissal of the
complaint for concubinage filed against him by
his wife before the City Prosecutor of Negros
Oriental as proof of his innocence.
Respondent, however, admits that he, his
mother and sister, are solicitous and hospitable
to his alleged concubine, Ms. Jocelyn Ching
and her daughter, Cyndee Rose (named after
his own deceased daughter), by allowing them
to stay in their house and giving them some
financial assistance, because they pity Ms.
Ching, a secretary in his law office, who was
deserted by her boyfriend after getting her
pregnant.
(4) On the Charge of Obstruction of Justice:
That "the legal remedies pursued by (him) in
defense and offense are legitimate courses of
action done by an embattled lawyer."

18. Paras vs Paras Disbarment The parties got married sometime in 1964. Whether or not Atty YES. The findings of the NBI shows that the None was mentioned Suspension of
(2000) Complaint for However, in 1988, their marriage fell apart Paras is falsified signatures of the wife were authored 6 months for
when, due to marital strain that has developed administratively by respondent. His presentation of the SPA the falsification
Dishonesty, through the years, respondent Atty Paras left liable. just put him in hot water. If he was indeed charge and 1
falsification and fraud his wife and children to live with his mother and authorized to obtain the loan, wy did he have year for the
sister in Dumaguete. to falsify his wife’s signature? immorality, the
Grossly immoral penalties are
conduct and GROUNDS: On the charge of immoality and to be served
Concubinage 1. On the Dishonesty and Falsification concubinage, the evidence is overwhelming, simultaneously
Issue- Atty Paras obtained loans from including the testimonies of their 2 children, .
Unethical and banks by counterfeiting her signature and other persons.
unprofessional and misappropriating its proceeds. He
conduct also mortgaged properties belonging Good moral character is not only a condition
to the Conjugal Property without the precedent but a continuing requirement. In
 Obstruction of wife’s consent. the case at hand, respondent has fallen
Justice 2. Grossly Immoral Conduct- He below the moral bar when he falsified his
maintained an illicit relationship with wife’s signature and sired a daughter with a
Ms Jocelyn Ching, siring an illegitime woman other than his wife. However, the
child with her. power to disbar must be exercised in great
3. Unethical and unprofessional conduct- caution and only in a clear case of
He harassed and intimidated all those misconduct that seriously affects his
who take a position diametrically standing as an officer of the court and as a
opposed to his plans. member of the bar.
4. Obstruction of justice- He used his
skills to derail the proceedings in the
criminal case filed against him

Defenses:
1. The wife executed SPA authorizing
him to obtain loans, and, the NBI
report showing that the signatures of
his name were written by one and the
same person.
2. The concubinage case filed against
hm was dismissed, and that, they
merely exhibited hospitality to Ching. It
was fabricated to disqualify him from
getting a share in the conjugal assets
3. The legal remedies he employed were
legitimate causes.

19. Advincula v. Atty. Disbarment- gross Complainant [Cynthia Advincula] seek the legal Whether respondent NO. The Court perceived acts of kissing or CANON I, Rule 1.01-- REPRIMANDE
Macabata (2007) immorality advice of the respondent [Atty. Macabata], committed acts that beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures A lawyer shall not D and STERN
regarding her collectibles from Queensway are grossly immoral. of friendship and camaraderie, forms of engage in unlawful, WARNING that
Travel and Tours and sent a demand letter to greetings, casual and customary. The acts of dishonest, immoral or a more severe
the concerned parties. respondent, though, in turning the head of deceitful conduct. sanction will be
complainant towards him and kissing her on imposed on
They met at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas the lips are distasteful. However, such act, CANON 7-- A lawyer him for any
Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility even if considered offensive and shall at all times repetition of
of filing the complaint against Queensway undesirable, cannot be considered grossly uphold the integrity the same or
Travel and Tours. After the dinner, respondent immoral. and dignity of the similar offense
sent complainant home and while she is about legal profession and in the future.
to step out of the car, respondent held her arm Complainant’s bare allegation that support the activities
and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her respondent made use and took advantage of of the Integrated Bar.
very tightly. his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree
to have sexual relations with him, deserves Rule 7.03-- A lawyer
Again, when she met respondent at Starbucks no credit. The burden of proof rests on the shall not engage in
coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to
finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in
Court. After the meeting, respondent offered
again a ride, along the way, complainant
wandered why she felt so sleepy. At along
Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of
Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon
City when she was almost restless respondent
stopped his car and forcefully held her face and
kissed her lips while the other hand was
holding her breast. Complainant even in a state
of shock succeeded in resisting his criminal
attempt and immediately managed to get out of
the car.
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text
message to respondent informing him that she
decided to refer the case with another lawyer
and needed to get back the case folder from
him.
The text messages were summarized as
follows: complainant told respondent that she
decided to refer the case with another lawyer,
and that she felt bad for the respondent taking
advantage of her, and that it is wrong to kiss a
girl in the lips if you don’t have a relationship
with her; respondent replied that he is very
sorry and it was just an expression of feelings,
and said that he will not do it again and wanted
to see her.
On the following day, respondent sent another
message to complainant saying "I don’t know
wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri.
Puede bati na tyo." Respondent also replied
"talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another
message was received by her at saying "Ano k
ba. I’m really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me.",
which is a clear manifestation of admission of
guilt.
DEFENSES:
Respondent averred that complainant offered
complainant, and she must establish the conduct that
case against the respondent by clear, adversely reflects on
convincing and satisfactory proof, disclosing his fitness to practice
a case that is free from doubt as to compel law, nor shall he,
the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary whether in public or
power. Thus, the adage that "he who asserts private life, behave in
not he who denies, must prove." a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the
Moreover, while respondent admitted having legal profession.
kissed complainant on the lips, the same
was not motivated by malice. The Court
come to this conclusion because right after
the complainant expressed her annoyance at
being kissed by the respondent through a
cellular phone text message, respondent
immediately extended an apology to
complainant also via cellular phone text
message. The exchange of text messages
between complainant and respondent bears
this out.
Be it noted also that the incident happened in
a place where there were several people in
the vicinity considering that Roosevelt
Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24
hours. If respondent truly had malicious
designs on complainant, he could have
brought her to a private place or a more
remote place where he could freely
accomplish the same.
her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper
Street and Roosevelt Avenue, where he
dropped off the complainant, was a busy street
teeming with people, thus, it would have been
impossible to commit the acts imputed to him.
20. Japson vs Civil Administrative Case: Records show that Japson became the subject
Service Commission guilty of dishonesty, of a series of complaints SSS linking him to a
grave misconduct profiting venture involving the processing of
and conduct claims for SSS death and funeral benefits while
prejudicial to the best he was assigned at SSS Baguio City from 1997
interest of the to May 1998. In response to the complaints, the
Service SSS conducted a series of investigation (sic)
on the official transactions of Japson and
uncovered details that raised its suspicion.
A case for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service was filed against Japson before the
SSS. On February 4, 2003, the SSS
promulgated a decision finding Japson guilty on
all counts. The SSS said that while there was
nothing wrong per se with petitioner letting
claimants use his home address for their
claims, a perception of material gain is
nonetheless indubitable. It pointed out that it
was highly improbable for claimants from
Isabela and Nueva Vizcaya, where there are
also SSS branches, to file their claims in Abra.
The most logical conclusion, the SSS said, is
that they made their claims through the
Spouses Abuan on the latter’s assurance that
these would be processed at the soonest
possible time. Petitioner should have been
wary of the number of claims brought to him by
the Spouses Abuan, the SSS said, and he
should have avoided these claims or referred
them to the proper branch offices. The SSS
held that it is not necessary to show concrete
proof of receiving consideration therefor,
following the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied in an Order dated May 12, 2003. He
then appealed to the CSC. In a resolution dated
August 31, 2006, the CSC affirmed the SSS
decision.
The CA ruled that the CSC resolutions were
anchored on substantial evidence.
Whether or not Yes. Factual findings made by quasi-judicial Constitution - public Penalty of
japson committed bodies and administrative agencies when office is a public trust dismissal as
dishonetsy, grave supported by substantial evidence are imposed by
misconduct and accorded great respect and even finality by CSC (the
counduct prejudicial the appellate courts. This is because assailed
to the best interest of administrative agencies possess specialized decision)
the service. knowledge and expertise in their respective
fields. As such, their findings of fact are Petition was
binding upon this Court unless there is a denied.
showing of grave abuse of discretion, or
where it is clearly shown that they were
arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the
evidence on record. Although there is some
variance in the conclusion arrived at by SSS
and CSC, their findings of facts are the
same. They both found evidence for the
complainants credible and proved petitioner
committed the acts complained of which
were sustained by the CA. Hence, the Court
adopts the same.
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or
distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant
to one’s office or connected with the
performance of his duty.30 It implies a
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and
lack of fairness and straightforwardness.
Misconduct is a transgression of some
established or definite rule of action, is a
forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful
in character, and implies wrongful intent and
not mere error in judgment.32 More
particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the
public officer.33 The term, however, does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent
Petitioner’s acts clearly reflect his dishonesty
and grave misconduct. He was less than
forthright in his dealings with the
complainants. He allowed the Spouses
Abuan to use his position to make their
"clients" believe that he could give them
undue advantage – over others without the
same connection – by processing their
claims faster. Likewise, his acts imply
malevolent intent, and not merely error in
judgment. He was aware of what the
Spouses Abuan were doing and was
complicit in the same. At the very least, he
failed to stop the illegal trade, and that
constitutes willful disregard of the laws and
rules.
Taken together, all the circumstances, as
found by the SSS and the CSC, show that
petitioner committed acts of Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service.
Prejudice to the service is not only through
wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss
of public property. Greater damage comes
with the public’s perception of corruption and
incompetence in the government.
Petitioner is reminded that a public servant
must exhibit at all times the highest sense of
honesty and integrity. The Constitution
stresses that a public office is a public trust
and public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives. These constitutionally-
enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case
law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or
idealistic sentiments. They should be taken
as working standards by all in the public
service.
17. Ventura vs Samson Complaint for A rape complaint was filed against Whether or not the YES. Canon 1, Rule 1.01, DISBARRED
(2012) Disbarment or Atty.Samson for having a sexual intercourse respondent should From the undisputed facts gathered from the Canon 7, Rule 7.03 In this case,
Suspension against with Maria Victoria Ventura,who was 13-year- be disbarred? evidence and the admissions of respondent respondent's
respondent Atty. old then. It was alleged that the girl was raped himself, we find that respondent's act of gross
Danilo S. Samson for in two separate instances, the first one when engaging in sex with a young lass, the misbehavior
"grossly immoral she was staying in the defendant’s house as daughter of his former employee, constitutes and
conduct. she was a student in Agusan National High gross immoral conduct that warrants unrepentant
School, the other was when she was forced to sanction. Respondent not only admitted he demeanor
ride in a multi-cab and was brought to had sexual intercourse with complainant but clearly shows a
defendant’s poultry-farm in Alegria where she also showed no remorse whatsoever when serious flaw in
was raped.The Investigating Prosecutors found he asserted that he did nothing wrong his character,
that probable cause exists for respondent to because she allegedly agreed and he even his moral
stand trial for qualified seduction. The charge gave her money. Indeed, his act of having indifference to
ofrape, however, was dismissed for carnal knowledge of a woman other than his sexual
insufficiency of evidence. An Information was wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on exploitation of
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the sanctity of marriage and his own marital a minor, and
Agusan del Sur,Branch 6, but complainant who vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he his outright
was not satisfied with the dismissal of the rape procured the act by enticing a very young defiance of
charge,filed a motion for reconsideration. When woman with money showed his utmost moral established
said motion was denied, complainant filed a depravity and low regard for the dignity of norms. All
petition for review with the Department of the human person and the ethics of his these could not
Justice (DOJ).However, the DOJ sustained the profession. but put the
findings of the prosecutor. Respondent has violated the trust and legal
confidence reposed on him by complainant, profession in
Grounds: then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was disrepute and
Exhibiting a grossly immoral conduct by having under respondent's care. Whether the place the
sexual intercourse with a woman who was sexual encounter between the respondent integrity of the
merely thirteen (13) years of age by herein and complainant was or was not with the administration
Respondent ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, then latter's consent is of no moment. of justice in
thirty eight (38) years old, married to Teresita Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, peril, hence the
B. Samson. grossly immoral and highly reprehensible need for strict
act. Such conduct is a transgression of the but appropriate
Defenses: standards of morality required of the legal disciplinary
- Respondent, however, has no profession and should be disciplined action.
knowledge or information as to the accordingly.
truth of the allegation that she was 13
years Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
- The act of respondent in having sex expressly states that a member of the bar
with complainant was done with may be disbarred or suspended from his
mutual agreement after respondent office as attorney by the Supreme Court for,
gave money to complainant as a just among others, any deceit, grossly immoral
compensation. conduct, or violation of the oath that he is
- The complaint is instigated by required to take before admission to the
Corazon Ventura who was an practice of law. It bears to stress that
employee at the Law Office of membership in the Bar is a privilege
respondent herein. The said Corazon burdened with conditions.
Ventura entertained hatred and [had a
grudge] against the herein respondent
who terminated her services due to
misunderstanding.
- Complainant is a woman of loose
moral character.