1. REYES vs.
GAA immorality against respondent has been substantiated by
FACTS:
A disbarment case filed against Atty. Salvador Gaa,
former Assistant City Fiscal of manila, with malpractice and willful
violation of his oath as an attorney. Complainant reported to NBI
that he had been the victim of extortion by respondent who was
investigating a complaint for estafa filed by complainant's business
rival. An entrapment was made by NBI to apprehend respondent.
On his defense, respondent asserted that complainant
surreptitiously planted the marked money in his pocket without his
knowledge and consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.
HELD:
In the case at bench, respondent was caught in  flagrante
delicto during entrapment. When the integrity of a member of the
bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges
against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence
against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that
degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of
him.
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of
such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to
show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member
of the bar on such grounds.
The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as
a public official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyer's oath, imposes upon every lawyer the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension,
disbarment or other disciplinary action. WHEREFORE, respondent
is DISBARRED.
2. DE LOS REYES vs. AZNAR
AM No. 1334 / November 28, 1989
Facts:
Complainant, a 2nd year medical student of Southwestern
University, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Aznar,
chairman of the said university. Delos Reyes alleged that
respondent had a carnal knowledge of her for several times under
threat that she would fail in her subject if she would not submit to
respondent’s lustful desires.
Respondent denied any personal knowledge of the complainant
as well as the allegations. He averred that complainant is a
woman of loose morality. While respondent denied having taking
complainant to the hotel in Manila and had sexual intercourse with
her there, he did not present any evidence to show where he was
at that date. While this is not a criminal proceeding, respondent
would have done more than keep his silence if he really felt
unjustly traduced. The Solicitor General found that the charge of
sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentary.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct
and thus be disbarred.
Ruling: YES
It is the duty of the lawyer, whenever his moral character is put
in issue, to satisfy the court that he is a fir and proper person to
enjoy continued membership in the Bar. When his integrity is
challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the
charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome
the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still
maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at
all times is expected of him.
Complainant submitted to respondent’s solicitation for sexual
intercourse not because of a desire for sexual gratification but
because of respondent’s moral ascendancy over her and fear
that if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects.
A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A
member of the Bar should have moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.
3. NARAG vs. NARAG
AC No. 3405 / June 29, 1998
Facts:
Mrs. Narag filed a complaint for disbarment against
her husband, Atty. Narag. Complainant alleged that
Respondent was a professor in a graduate school and had an
illicit relationship with his student and subsequently abandoned
his family to live with the said student.
Respondent, in his answer, denied the allegations
against him. He averred that it was the complainant who
harassed and humiliated him because of jealous rage. He said
that complainant told everyone, everywhere that her husband
was worthless, good for nothing, evil and immoral. And
because of that he was disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. He
averred that he never abandoned his family and that it was his
family who forcibly drove him out of the conjugal home.
Respondent did not present himself on the witness
stand to testify and be cross-examined on sworn comment nor
did he present his alleged paramour to disprove the adulterous
relationship.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent should be disbarred
Ruling: Yes
1
 The court found that the conduct of respondent warrants
the imposition of the penalty of disbarment. Good moral character
is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members of the bar. When a lawyer
is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.
On the strength of the testimony of Complainant’s
witnesses, she was able to establish that respondent abandoned
his family and lived with another woman. While the burden of proof
is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to
himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain
as member of the bar. mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when
his moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue
practicing is profession is imperiled, he must meet the charges
squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this court, that he is morally fit to have his
name in the roll of attorneys. This he failed to do.
4. FIGUEROA vs. BARRANCO
SBC Case No. 519 / July 31, 1997
Facts:
Complainant petitioned that respondent be denied
admission to the legal profession. Before respondent could take
his oath, complainant filed this petition averring that respondent
and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was
born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry her. Her trust in him and their relationship
ended when she learned that respondent married another woman.
At first, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to
prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to
allow respondent to take the lawyer’s oath. However, after such,
complainant revived her petition and respondent was prevented
from taking the lawyer’s oath.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immoral
conduct and should not be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
Ruling: NO
The court did not find that the acts of respondent
constituted gross immoral conduct that would warrant the
permanent exclusion from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to
marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the
same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. To justify
suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be
immoral but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral conduct is one
that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
sexual relations were evidently consensual. Although respondent
chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman, the
court cannot castigate a man seeking out the partner of his
dreams. The complaint can be viewed as an act of revenge of
a woman who is scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. It is
also intended to make respondent suffer severely and
sacrificing the profession he worked hard to be admitted into.
8. TUMBAGA vs. TEOXON
FACTS:
An administrative complaint filed by complainant
Gizale O. Tumbaga against respondent Atty. Manuel P.
Teox.on, charging him with gross immorality, deceitful and
fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct.
Complainant met respondent when he was then the
City Legal Officer of Naga City from whom complainant
sought legal advice. Then they developed an intimate
relationship despite respondent being married already to
Luzviminda Balang, and assured that their marriage was a
sham because their marriage contract was not registered. So
they moved in, then she got pregnant. Respondent allegedly
wanted to have the baby aborted but complainant refused.
After birth, respondent reneged on his promise of support and
seldom meets with his new family.
In the evening of September 9, 2001, respondent
raided complainant's new residence. Visibly drunk, respondent
threatened to hurt complainant with the bolo and the lead pipe
that he was carrying if she will not return the personal
belongings that he left in their previous apartment unit.
In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in
the complaint. He asserted that complainant merely wanted to
exact money from him. He denied everything, from alleged
intimate relationship with complainant, in living together, as
well as paternity to her child.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct.
HELD:
The good moral conduct or character must be
possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for
admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement
from the practice of law.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an
officer of the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral
character, but must also be seen to be of good moral character
and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. More specifically, a member of
the Bar and officer of the Court is required not only to refrain
from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating
the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to
the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such
2
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it
must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency.
However, considering respondent's blatant attempts to
deceive the courts and the IBP regarding his true relationship with
complainant, we agree with the IBP Board of Governors that the
proper penalty in this instance is a three-year suspension from the
practice of law. WHEREFORE,  GUILTY and suspended for 3
years with stern warning.
9. CHUA vs. MESINA
AC No. 4904 / August 12, 2004
Facts:
A complaint was filed against Atty. Mesina for breach of
professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice. There was a conveyance of property and as
complainants were apprised of the amount of capital gains tax,
they consulted respondent about it. Respondent suggested to
them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be executed that
will be antedated before the effectivity of the law mandating the
payment of capital gains tax. This advice was followed by
complainants. However later on, complainants were charged for
falsification of public document and violation of the Internal
Revenue Code and that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect
the true value of the property and was antedated to evade
payment of capital gains tax.
A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but he did not
appear. Given the length of time that the case remained pending,
the complainants were directed to just file their position paper with
affidavits and supporting document.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and be
disbarred.
Ruling: YES
By advising complainants to execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated to evade payment of capital gains tax, he
violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes,
and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of law.
Respondent violated his oath of office and Canons
1,7,15, & 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
11. LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services. Complaint alleged that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages. To support his allegations, complainant presented
the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano
tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations
with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in
exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00. Complainant also
attached “respondent’s” calling card. Respondent, in his
defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing
and circulation of the said calling card.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment.
RULING: Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer
shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be
read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides
that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure
to protect the community from barratry and champerty. In the
case at bar, complainant presented substantial evidence
(consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons
coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent’s office) to
prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well
as profited from referrals’ suits.
Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that
respondent could produce a more favorable result. Based on
the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR
and section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Any act of
solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise
of the Court’s disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation
statues warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a
prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment.
Thus in this jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of
unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession. Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services
available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible
with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
12. ULEP vs. LEGAL CLINIC, Inc. B.M. No. 553
3
FACTS: It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements
of legal service (foreign divorce in Guam, secret marriage,
remarriage and etc) reproduced are champertous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of
the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is
ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the
reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
ISSUE: WON respondent violated the canon in making these
prohibited advertisements.
RULING: YES. The standards of the legal profession condemn
the lawyer's advertisement of his talents.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements,
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts (Canon 3).
He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services (Canon 3.01).
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests
on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a
profession.
The canons of the profession tell us that the best advertising
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to
a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing
itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a
normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda.
EXCEPTIONAL RULE:
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited.
The canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule
against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which
they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad
categories, namely, those which are
1. expressly allowed and
2. those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions.
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law
lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
"Such data must not be misleading and may include only a
statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable
addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth
and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of
graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or
quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal
teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and
legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists;
the names and addresses of references; and, with their written
consent, the names of clients regularly represented."
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for
that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a
paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may
not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data
in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list
the conduct, management or contents of which are calculated
or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower
the dignity or standing of the profession.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also
permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name,
the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The
publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law
firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or
office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a
telephone directory but not under a designation of special
branch of law.
13. KHAN vs SIMBILLO
FACTS: Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and
pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs.
Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo,
was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee
a court decree within four to six months, provided the case will
not involve
separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also
said that her husband charges a fee of P48, 000.00, half of
which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other
half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Additional research by the Office of the Court Administrator
and the Public Information Office revealed that similar
advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000
issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The
Philippine Star.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and
4
solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that his
acts for advertising and solicitation are not prohibited acts.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING: YES. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
Also, practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.
The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
The duty to public service and to the administration of justice
should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. The following elements distinguish the legal
profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-
product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of
justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods
of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients.
There is no question that respondent committed the acts
complained of. He himself admitted that he caused the publication
of the advertisements. The Court ruled that respondent RIZALINO
T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section
27 of the Rules of Court. Also, he is suspended from the practice
of law for one year.
14. DACANAY V. BAKER & MCKENZIE
FACTS: Respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of
Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers,
asked a certain Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of
Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979,
denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he
be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker &
McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in using the
letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any
reply, he filed the instant complaint. As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois
with members and associates in 30 cities around the world.
Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar,
practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are
members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.
ISSUE: Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm,
could practice law in the Philippines.
RULING: NO. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm,
cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules
of Court).
Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted
as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good
and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Respondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constituted a representation that being associated with the firm
they could “render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
foreign trade and investment”. This was unethical because
Baker & McKenzie was not authorized to practice law here.
Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm
name Baker & McKenzie.
15. WILLIAMS v. ENRIQUEZ
FACTS: Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez stands charged with "unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney." It appears
that respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. 134432 pending before theRegional Trial Court,
Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the
defendants.
Accordingly, Attorney Rudy T. Enriquez cited outdated material
in his complaint-affidavit (Annex A-1) and in his comments to
counter-affidavit (Annex A-2). He then knowingly applied this
stale lawin a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan
Williams automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she
married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in
the Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification in the
Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Enriquez is administratively liable for citing
an old law.
5

RULING: YES. As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner,
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a
lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence. Indeed,
when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one
does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his
duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court
on the issues and legal problems confronting a client. In this case,
the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the
Constitution, the most basic law of the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s
mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability
and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law
and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal
education programs.
Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases,
a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed
by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound
arguments for clients, lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a
technical ground. Ignorance encompasses both substantive and
procedural laws.
The penalty recommended by the Commissioner is too harsh; the
power to disbar or to suspend must be exercised with great
caution. The penalty of reprimand will suffice.
16. COLLANTES vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON
Facts:
Case for disbarment related to the administrative case
which complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel
for V & G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V & G for short), filed
against Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City, for the latter's irregular actuations with regard to the
application of V & G for registration of 163 pro forma Deeds of
Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision. Long story
short, respondent kept delaying and denying the approval of
application of said patents. Respondent kept on extorting
complainant through special agreements which if not complied
with, will not facilitate the approval of the patents, despite
compliance of respondent with all requirements for its approval.
Issue:
Whether the respondent Register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also
be disciplined thru disbarment proceedings for his malfeasances
as a public official.
Ruling:
YES, his misconduct as a public official also constituted a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer's oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension,
disbarment or other disciplinary action.
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks. It forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility), or delay any man's cause "for any corrupt
motive or interest" (Rule 103).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which
Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble
calling of the law. He should therefore be disbarred.
DISBARRED.
17. HUYSSEN vs. GUTIERREZ
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation officer, received US$20,000 from complainant
Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in
complainant’s application for visa and failing to return the
same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted complainant and children in their application for visa.
He failed however to substantiate such denial.
Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money
could not immediately be returned to the complainant, and
promised her several times that he would repay her out of his
personal funds. He even issued personal post-dated checks on
this, but which later bounced.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent’s conduct violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility and merits the penalty of
disbarment?
Ruling:
Yes, the respondent should be disbarred.
Lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate
the fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board of
Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation,
makes it more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the
reputation and integrity of said office. It is submitted that
respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which reads:
"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties."
Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check shows
moral turpitude. Respondent's acts are more despicable, for
not only did he misappropriate the money of complainant;
worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts with the letterhead
of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds.
A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially
in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with
6
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. More
importantly, possession of good moral character must be
continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of
law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he
received from the complainant with legal interest.
18. PCGG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito
Mendoz, who has currently resumed the private practice of law,
was sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan
group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank and Trust
Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a writ
of sequestration by PCGG being alleged to be ill –gotten wealth
acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was averred by the PCGG
that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza since he was
the one who filed a petition praying for assistance and
supervision of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK when he
was still a Solicitor General, which bank was subsequently owned
by the Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning bid.
PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from
accepting “engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in said service.”
Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by arguing that
CGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between
respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General and
his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and
that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et
al. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section
7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor
General in the year 1986.
Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
applies to respondent Mendoza
Ruling:
No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule
6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. The
motion for disqualification should be dismissed for the following
reasons:
1) After discussing the history of the present Code of
Professional Responsibility which revealed that the
word “intervene” is applicable to both adverse interest
conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been
found that neither of these conflicts exists in the
liquidation case and the sequestration case.
2) The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an
issue in the sequestration cases.
The “matter” where he got himself involved was in
informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law to
liquidate GENBANK through the courts and in filing the
necessary petition in the then Court of First Instance. The
subject “matter” of the special proceeding, therefore, is not
the same nor is related to but is different from the subject
“matter” in the civil case.  The civil case involves
the sequestration of the stocks owned by respondents
Tan, et al., in Allied Bank on the alleged ground that they are
ill-gotten.  The case does not involve the liquidation of
GENBANK.  Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied
Bank. Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied
Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of the
dissolution and liquidation of GENBANK.  GENBANK was
liquidated by the Central Bank due, among others, to the
alleged banking malpractices of its owners and officers.
3) Mendoza’s intervention in the liquidation of
Genbank is not substantial and significant to
warrant disqualification.
The petition in the special proceedings is
an initiatory pleading, hence, it has to be signed by
respondent Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor
General.  For another, the record is arid as to
the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in
the subsequent proceedings.  Moreover, the petition
filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the
liquidation of GENBANK.  The principal role of the
court in this type of proceedings is to assist the
Central Bank in determining claims of
creditors against the GENBANK.
It is worthy to note that in construing the words of
such rule in this case, the Court balanced the two policy
considerations of having a chilling effect on government
recruitment of able legal talent and the use of former
government employment as a litigation tactic to harass
opposing counsel.
7