PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

CASE DIGEST

MARILOU SEBASTIAN vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS

A.C. No. 5118. | September 9, 1999

For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer,
respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.

FACTS:
Sometime in November 1992, Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) was referred to the Respondent
(Atty. Calis) who promised to process all the necessary documents requirements for her trip to USA for
150,000.00. After payment for expedite processing, the respondent furnished the complainant copies
of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application and a list of questions which would be asked
during interviews.
Upon inquiry of the complainant regarding the passport, Atty. Calis informed her that she will be
assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao
Marketing, Inc. and she was furnished documents to support her assumed identity. Realizing that she
will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money, the
respondent assured her not to worry and that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with other recruits were
apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious travel documents and was
detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore and were deported back in the Philippines.
Complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in
the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00). Respondent made partial refunds of
P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00 leaving the balance of P114,000 in which demand letter through
the counsel of the complainant was made and was ignored by the respondent.
Respondent transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade
responsibility. Thus a complaint was filed, despite of several notices, respondent failed to answer and
failed to attend the scheduled hearings, no appearance whatsoever by the respondent. As a result of
the inexplicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of the
Commission, the investigation against him proceeded ex parte.

Sebastian Vs. Calis P1

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT ATTY CALIS IS GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL

CONDUCT AND A VIOLATION OF HIS OATH?

HELD:

Guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a “lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct”.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal
moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s relationship with others should
be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the
lawyer’s oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must
be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a
person of good moral character. This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. We have
sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity,
puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in
the practice of law. Respondent’s adamant refusal to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total
disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional
conduct.
Thus, the court find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of
Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
DISBARRED and granted in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00.

Sebastian Vs. Calis P2

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

ROGELIO A. TAN, NORMA TAN and MALIYAWAO PAGAYOKAN VS. BENEDICTO BALAJADIA
G.R. NO. 169517 | MARCH 14, 2006

It is an original petition for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao
Pagayokan agains respondent Benedicto Balajadia

FACTS:

A Petition for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan
against respondent Benedicto Balajadia. Respondent filed a complaint of criminal case against the
petitioner. In par. 5 of his complaint-affidavit, Respondent asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based
in Bagiuo City with Office Address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City.

Certifications from the IBP showed that he has never been admitted to the Philippine bar. Hence,
Petitioners claim that respondent should be liable for indirect contempt.vRespondent avers that it was
an honest mistake and that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the complaint-affidavit
which was patterned after Atty. Aquino’s and that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself as
a practicing lawyer.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT?

HELD:

The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court is in the nature of criminal contempt. In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled
is the rule that intent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the evidence makes
it clear that he intended to commit it. Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he
is a practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish intent as to make
him liable for indirect contempt. The petition is DISMISSED. Respondent is WARNED to be more careful
and circumspect in his future actions.

Application:
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

LESLIE UI vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO

A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 200

An administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an
immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui

FACTS:

Complainant Leslie Ui is married to Carlos Ui with four children. However complainant found out that
her husband Carlos Ui have an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio. June 1988,
Complainant visited the office of the respondent and was informed that everything was over between
her and Carlos Ui. 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.

Respondent on the other hand averred that she meet Carlos Ui and had known him as a bachelor for
a long time and that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married in Hawaii
attaching their Marriage Certificate (which is alleged to have an altered year from 1987 to 1985) . She
did not know that Carlos Ui was already married. That there was no reason for her to doubt at that
time that the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so much time with her,
and he was so open in his courtship and that upon learning of this fact, respondent immediately cut-
off all her ties with Carlos Ui.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. BONIFACIO CONDUCTED HERSELF IN AN IMMORAL ACT SUBJECT FOR
DISBARMENT.

HELD:

Despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child, a
circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondents allegation that Carlos Ui was
very open in courting her.

Respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that
her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage,
cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.[27] Moreover,
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must
be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree.

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

The court 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. Complainant’s 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. Complainant miserably failed
to do.
Thus complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality,
is hereby DISMISSED. However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a
photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date thereof, with a
STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or
similar offense in the future.

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO M.RONGCAL

A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006

The allegations raised in this case for disbarment are more sordid, if not tawdry, from the
usual. As such, close scrutiny of these claims is called for. Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being
the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution and only in those
cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.

FACTS:

An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. Vitug against Atty.
Diosdado M. Rongcal. Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M.
Rongcal who was introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to
represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino.
Respondent allegedly started courting her, giving her financial aid. Soon he had progressed to making
sexual advances towards complainant, to the accompaniment of sweet inducements such as the
promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective
claim for support against Aquino.

On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer

which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly
advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated
checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead of turning them over to her,
respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her the
balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, sometime in April or May 2001, respondent
informed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign
as he was then running for the position of Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an
administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

In the other hand, Respondent admits sending a demand letter to her former lover, Aquino, to ask
support for the child and willing to give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute an
affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter. Respondent relayed this proposal
to complainant who asked for his advice. He then advised her to study the proposal thoroughly and
with a practical mindset. He also explained to her the pros and cons of pursuing the case and that
complainant agreed and voluntarily signed the respondents, As regards their illicit relationship,
respondent admits of his sexual liaison with complainant. He, however, denies luring her with sweet
words and empty promises. Respondent ended his relationship with complainant, but still he agreed
to give her monthly financial assistance and when he turned down another request for financial
assistance, he was being blackmailed

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
CASE DIGEST

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality

HELD:

It is an investigation by the Court into the fitness of a lawyer to remain in the legal profession
and be allowed the privileges as such. Its primary objective is to protect the Court and the public from
the misconduct of its officers with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and
the proper and honest administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important
function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men and women in whom courts and clients may
repose confidence. As such, it involves no private interest and affords no redress for private
grievance.The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the lawyers alleged
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good
citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

Respondent’s misconduct is of considerable gravity. There is a string of cases where the Court
meted out the extreme penalty of disbarment on the ground of gross immorality where the
respondent contracted a bigamous marriage, abandoned his family to cohabit with his
paramour, cohabited with a married woman, lured an innocent woman into marriage or was found to
be a womanizer. The instant case can be easily differentiated from the foregoing cases.We, therefore,
heed the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as temporary
suspension, would accomplish the end desired. In Zaguirre v. Castillo, respondent was found to have
sired a child with another woman who knew he was married. He therein sought understanding from
the Court pointing out the polygamous nature of men and that the illicit relationship was a product of
mutual lust and desire. Appalled at his reprehensible and amoral attitude, the Court suspended him
indefinitely

The Court note that from the very beginning of this case, herein respondent had expressed
remorse over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago. It was taken
as signs that his is not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be taken as mitigating
circumstances in his favor. Considering further that this is his first offense, the court believe that a fine
of P15,000.00 would suffice. This, of course, is without prejudice to the outcome of the aspect of this
case involving the alleged misappropriation of funds of the client.

WHEREFORE, the Court find Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on
him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely.

JANE C. ALBINA
NORSU COLLEGE OF LAW