Adez Realty vs.

Court of Appeals

Dacanay was disbarred 3 years ago due to inter collating qoute from a that he handled. He filed
for a motion to lift his disbarment, along with that he stated that he is already 62 years old, has learned
his lesson and terribly sorry for what he had done. If he could be given another chance , he would live up
to the exacting demeanour of the legal profession. He also attached goo d moral character
certificatefrom several persons, institutions and organixation, but was denied by the court. Finally, after
several letters, he once more acknowledged his committed offense and the suffering of his family due to
stigma of their disbarred father.

Whether or not Dacanay be reinstated due to circumstances?

Yes, the disbarment of Dacanay for 3 years, has quite apparently, given from the sufficient time and
occasion to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem himself and prove once more
that he is worthy to practice law and be capable of upholding the dignity of legal profession. His
admission of his guilt where repeated pleas for compassion and reinstatement showed that he is ready
once more to meet the exacting standards of the legal profession which it demands from its
practitioner.

Illusurio vs Lokin

Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.

Luis Lokin, Jr.. This sprung from the time that her father, the late
Potenciano Ilusorio, engaged the services of Lokin to represent him in the
Sandiganbayan where the Republic was claiming, among other properties,
shareholdings in Marcos Crownies (Philippine Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT).)

Ther is allegation which becomes the basis of disbarment

Ilusorio-Bildner now filed the Ilusorio, had earlier filed with the IBP a
disbarment complaint. However, on account of the death of Ilusorio, his
complaint was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint
by Ilusorio’s children. Ilusorio-Bildner now filed the complaint but the IBP
Board of Governors dismissed it. No copy of the notice of resolution was
served upon petitioner. Ilusorio-Bildner, nonetheless, learned about the
matter.
Ilusorio, with the assistance of Lokin, entered into a Compromise Agreement where
Ilusorio was to get 673 POTC shares. Ilusorio-Bildner alleges that the informal
gathering, through the “high-handed and deceitful maneuvers” of Lokin, was suddenly
and without notice transformed into a Special Stockholders Meeting at
which directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT were elected. Her father contested the
validity of the meeting by filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
against Manuel Nieto, et al. who were purportedly elected directors and officers of
PHILCOMSAT, in which SEC case Lokin appeared as the counsel of Nieto, et al.,
contrary to his oath not to represent conflicting interests.

Illusurio-Bildner is the daughter of late illusurio. She filed a disbarment case against Lokin. Lokin
was a counsekpl of the father of Illusurio-Bildner. The government is claiming the shares of the company
held by Illusurio.it is alleged that Illusurio entered into compromise with the assistance of Lokin that
should be in favour of her father but turned out to be a special stockholder s meeting where the director
and officers were elected. The father contested the validity of the session and filed a complaint to
Securities and Exchange Commission and Lokin appeared as opposing counsel, which allegedly
constitutes conflict of interest. The father initially filed the disbarment and followed up by his daughter.

Whether or not there is sufficient legal standing on the part of the daughter?

Yes. Section 1, Rule 139-B stated that:

Section 1. How instituted Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of

attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly
and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts.

Clearly, personal knowledge is required, most of the complaint, but of her witness. If there is any,
oddly enough, the quotation of same provision by the investigating comisioners who dismissed the
earlier disciplinary case against Lokin admitted the phrase "any person, making it appear that
complaints must have personal know ledge of the facts they alledged.

Tan vs Sabacandal

Unauthorized Practice of Law- GUILTY; barred from taking OATH

Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that
he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Calling himself ATTORNEY
Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him
regarding instances when he called himself “attorney” knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.  Oppositor’s evidence sufficiently show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in
the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was paid for his “legal services”

He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.  In a resolution
promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied.  Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and
benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s
oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

Tan and several people filed complaint due to Sabacandal's unauthorized law practice.
Sabacandal did not yet pass the bar when he took up the cases of the former and because of that they
appealed to prevent the admission of Sabacandal to the bar which was granted, that caused numerous
motions to be admitted to the bar and asked for forgiveness.

Whether or not Sabacandal be admitted to the Bar?

An applicant must satisfy to the court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to
practice bar. Following criteria were considered in several cases: the person appreciates the
insignificance of his direction and he ensures that the court that he now posses the requisites purity and
integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be reported to the practice of law; the time that
has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement, his good conduct and
honourable clearing subsequent to his disbarment , his active investment in civic, educational and
religious organisation, the favourable indorsment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the
local government officials and citizen of his community; the pleas of his mother and wife for the sake of
the future of his family; the foregoing criteria may be made applicable on to Sabacandal's case. After the
lapse of 10 years from the time he passed the Bar examination. He has shown contribution and
willingness to reform. It is worth nothing also of the good moral character from IBP Zamboanga.

In re : Rusiana

Rusiana was disbarred due to misconduct of Public Notary and exhibited such frame of mind and
observed such a norm of conduct unworthy of a member of legal profession. He had intentionally filed
with court for readmission, supported by resolution from member of the Bench and Bar, labour unions,
newspaper editors and reporters, members of professional and civic organisation, attesting to Rusiana's
good conduct and moral character since his disbarment and to be reinstated to the legal profession on
certain condition

Whether or not Rusiana be reinstated?

Yes. He complied with requirement in court resolution on July 20 1972, as evidence by the several
certificates by individual professors of review centres that he attended, attesting to his regular
attendance and passed their subject under some conditions as student and separate letters of Registrar
and Dean of Law school addresed to this Court Clerk of Court and acting as Bar confidant, confirmation
of the student in court resolution ; he is ordered to pass the fourth year class in recognised law school.

In re: Rovero

Rovero was disbarred due to violation of Section 2703 of Revised Administrative Code. After 4
years, he filed bar reinstatement and claimed mental anguish and misery, also ask for unconditional
pardon for his crime to restore his political and civil rights and pledged not to do it again but was denied.
He tried it again when he is near to his time of death at the age of 71 years old.

Rovero has been active in civic and educational organisation. He became the secretary of Provincial
Board of Philippine National Red Cross and held high position on several organisation even in
commercial sector and religious organisation that claimed him of being a devotee and he receive a
pardon from Late President Ramon Magsaysay. For more the 20 years, Rovero has been significantly
punished and disciplined.

Whether or not Rovero be readmitted to the back due to his circumstances?

A person of good moral character - a fit and proper person to practice law must be satisfied to be a
member of the Bar. An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removed all the
disabilities resulting from conviction. In case at bar, it appears that since his disbarment on 1952. Rovero
has honourable death with his citizens , demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and reformatiin as to be
filled once more to emergeub the practice of law.

An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes all
disabilities resulting from the conviction. In the case of In re Marcelino Lontok,
[16]
 the Court, in dismissing the disbarment proceeding against the respondent
therein, who had been convicted of bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude,
upon the ground that the respondent had been granted plenary pardon for his
crime, applied the rule that "a person reaches both the punishment prescribed for
the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases
the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law
the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the crime," and, "if
granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, and
restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives
him a new credit and capacity."
Under the circumstances, and considering that more than 28 years had already
passed since he was disbarred, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero has been
sufficiently punished and disciplined
On 30 October 1992 the Court found movant, Atty. Benjamin M. Dacanay, guilty of intercalating a material fact in a decision of
the Court of Appeals, which he appealed to this Court on certiorari, thereby altering the factual findings of the Court of Appeals
with the apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment. Consequently, Atty. Dacanay was
disbarred from the practice of law.

He claimed that the inserted words were written by his client, the President of Adez Realty, Inc., in the draft of the petition to
be filed before the Supreme Court and unwittingly adopted by movant's secretary when the latter formalized the petition. He
manifested that he would not risk committing the act for which he was found guilty considering that he was a nominee of the
Judicial and Bar Council to the President for appointment as regional trial judge.

MOTION TO LIFT DISBARMENT: LEARNED HIS LESSON WELL

Dacanay filed a Motion to Lift (Disbarment) stating that he was already 62 years old, has learned his lesson from his mistake, was
terribly sorry for what he had done, and in all candor promised that if given another chance he would live up to the exacting
demands of the legal profession. He appended to his motion certifications of good moral character from: Fr. Celso Fernando,
Parochial Vicar, Parish of St. Michael Archangel, Marilao, Bulacan; Fr. Lauro V. Larlar, OAR, Rector, San Sebastian College-
Recoletos; Sis. Aniceta B. Abion, EMM, Chairperson, Center for Housing and Ecology Development Foundation, Inc.; Dean Rufus B.
Rodriquez, College of Law, San Sebastian College-Recoletos; Judge Pedro T. Santiago, Executive Judge, RTC, Quezon City; Judge
Teodoro P. Regino, RTC-Br. 84, Quezon City; Judge Antonio P. Solano, RTC-Br. 86, Quezon City; and Judge Gregorio D. Dayrit,
MTC-Br. 35, Quezon City

Issue: Should the disbarment be lifted?

Held:
3 YEARS- ENOUGH TO REDEEM HIMSELF AND PROOF HIS WORTH IN PRACTICE
The disbarment of movant Benjamin M. Dacanay for three (3) years has, quite apparently, given him sufficient time and occasion
to soul-search and reflect on his professional conduct, redeem himself and prove once more that he is worthy to practice law and
be capable of upholding the dignity of the legal profession. His admission of guilt and repeated pleas for compassion and
reinstatement show that he is ready once more to meet the exacting standards the legal profession demands from its
practitioners. Accordingly, the Court lifts the disbarment of Benjamin M. Dacanay. However he should be sternly warned that —

THE WARNING: ADHERENCE TO RIGID STANDARDS

[T]he practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance
of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for
remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian
of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a
right, but a bounden duty as well . . . That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members . . .

WHEREFORE, the disbarment of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY from the practice of law is LIFTED and he is therefore allowed to resume
the practice of law upon payment of the required legal fees. This resolution is effective immediately.
+

DA K. ILUSORIO-BILDNER v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., et al.

477 SCRA 634 (2005)

A lawyer is prohibited from representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused

by his firm.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Lokin was personally barred by the rules of ethics from representing an
interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his firm

HELD:

Notwithstanding his acknowledged involvement in both the Sandiganbayan and SEC

cases, respondent denies that he was guilty of representing conflicting interests, he
proffering that, in the first place, the case of Ilusorio in the Sandiganbayan “has been
the personal account of Atty. Raval, separate and apart from the accounts of the law
partnership.” Not only is this claim unsubstantiated, however. It is contradicted by
respondent’s own evidence and statements.

As earlier noted, respondent has stated that Ilusorio was represented by his firm in the
Sandiganbayan case. In light thereof, respondent was personally barred by the rules of
ethics from representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his firm.

Plainly, when Lokin represented Nieto, et al. in the SEC, he was advocating an

interest hostile to the implementation of the same Compromise Agreement that he had
priorly negotiated for Ilusorio.

The Board thus erred when, while acknowledging that Ilusorio was represented by
respondent’s firm in his negotiations with the PCGG, it nonetheless maintained that
there was no conflict of interest upon a finding that the subsequent SEC case “did not in
any way involve the validity of the compromise agreement forged with the PCGG.”

+
IN rusiana
On May 29, 1959, the Court, finding that respondent Atty. Carlos
C. Rusiana, who was admitted to the Philippine Bar on January
21, 1955, committed acts of misconduct as a notary public and
"has exhibited such a frame of mind and observed such a norm
of conduct as is unworthy of a member of the legal profession,"
ordered his disbarment.

Respondent has intermittently filed with this Court petitions for re-
admission, supported by resolutions from members of the Bench and Bar,
labor unions, newspaper editors and reporters, members of professional
and civic organizations of the Province of Cebu, attesting to respondent's
good conduct and moral character since his disbarment, and petitioning for
his reinstatement to the legal profession.

The sole object of the Court upon an application for

reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is to
determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and
convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has
made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been
successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted to a
profession which is intrinsically an office of trust.

The earlier petitions filed by respondent were denied.  On June 13, 1972, he
filed a verified petition for reinstatement, submitting proofs of his honesty
and integrity and other indications of his good moral character (clearances
from the City Courts and Court of First Instance of Cebu, Police
Department of Cebu City, testimonials on his character by fiscals, lawyers,
Judges of City Courts and of the Court of First Instance, resolutions of the
Cebu Lions Club, Sto. Rosario Council No. 5508 of the Knights of
Columbus, Bar Association of Cebu, Cebu Lawyers League, Inc.), and after
the hearing on the petition for reinstatement on July 18, 1972, the Court
issued a resolution on July 20, 1972, to wit:

"x x x [A] cling on the respondent's prayer for reinstatement as a member of

the Philippine Bar, and considering
-(a) that respondent movant had been disbarred as of May 29, 1959;
-(b) that since then the said respondent may be considered as having
undergone adequate punishment;
-(c) that he has observed exemplary conduct since then, according to
credible certifications attesting to his repentance for the offense committed
by him thirteen (13) years ago, and may be reasonably expected to
scrupulously observe the Canons of Legal Ethics in the future;
-(d) but that, in view of the numerous changes in the law since 1959,
respondent movant should offer some guarantee of his ability to render
adequate service to his prospective clients; the Court resolved that
respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana be, as he is hereby required,
to enroll in, and pass, regular fourth year review classes in a
recognized law school, and that upon his filing with the Clerk of
this Court of sworn certificates by the individual professors of
the review classes attesting to his having regularly attended and
passed their subjects, under the same conditions as ordinary
students said movant Carlos C. Rusiana be readmitted as a member of the
Philippine Bar, upon his taking anew the lawyer's oath and signing the Roll
of Attorneys in the custody of the Clerk of this Supreme Court."
Respondent has already complied with the requirements
contained in the Court's above-quoted resolution, as evidenced
by the sworn certificates by the individual professors of the
review classes attended by him attesting to his having regularly
attended and passed their subjects under the same conditions as
ordinary students, and the separate letters, both dated February
25, 1974, of the Registrar and the Dean of the Gullas Law School,
of the University of the Visayas, addressed to Atty. Luis Garcia,
this Court's Deputy Clerk of Court and Acting Bar Confidant,
confirming the truth of the professors' statements.

WHEREFORE, conformably with the Court's resolution dated July 20,

1972, respondent Carlos C. Rusiana is hereby allowed to take anew the
lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys after paying to this Court the
requisite fees.

In rovero

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

Petition of respondent Tranquilino Rovero for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys.

The record shows that on October 24, 1952, the Court, upon a finding that the
respondent Tranquilino Rovero had been found guilty by a competent court of a
violation of Section 2703 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended,
(Smuggling) and sentenced to pay a fine of P2,500.00, ordered his disbarment
and the surrender of the lawyer's certificate issued to him. [1] 
-Almost four (4) years thereafter, or on July 7, 1956, the said respondent filed a
petition for reinstatement, claiming, among others, that his disbarment had
caused him untold misery and mental anguish, and that he had been granted an
absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime and restored to full civil and
political rights, and pledged, "on bended knees", "not to commit the same or
similar mistake in the future nor to involve himself further in any transaction
which might tend to drag down his name as lawyer and as an ordinary dignified
citizen."[2] The Court, however, denied his petition. [3]

Not one to be disheartened, on March 10, 1958, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero
again implored the Court to be readmitted to the practice of law, [4] but the Court turned a
deaf ear to his plea.[5]
-Once more, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero, "now in his twilight years (71 years
old)" asks humbly and earnestly of the Court to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys
"before crossing the bar to the great beyond." [6]

(To be reinstated to the practice of law, it is necessary that the respondent must, like
any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of
good moral character a fit and proper person to practice law. [7]

-In the instant case, it appears that since his disbarment in 1952, the respondent
Tranquilino Rovero has honorably dealt with his fellow citizens. He had demonstrated
his moral rehabilitation and reformation as to be fit, once more, to engage in the practice
of law. Mr. Rovero has been active in several civic and educational organizations. He
was appointed the secretary of the Provincial Board of Aklan when that province was
organized.
-He had also been the duly accredited delegate of the Aklan Chapter of the Philippine
National Red Cross to its Second Biennial National Convention held in Manila on
August 23 to 26, 1957.[8] He was president of the Quezon City Central Lions Club which
he helped organize,[9] and for a time, he was president of the Board of Trustees of the
Northwestern Visayan Colleges in Kalibo, Aklan. [10]

-Mr. Rovero has also held high positions of trust in commercial establishments. He had
been elected the president of the Filipino Industrial Corporation; the vice-president of
the Meteor Company, Inc., and the president of the Rural Bank of Hermosa (Bataan), a
position which he holds up to the present. [11]

Testimonials have been presented regarding the high esteem accorded him in the
community to which he belongs.[12] His good conduct is certified to by the president of
the Aklan Bar Association[13] and the parish priest of Christ the King Church who stated
that Mr. Rovero "is a devoted parishioner who always gets voluntarily involved in the
various charitable activities of the parish," and "is cooperative and responsible and gets
along fine with his fellow parishioners." [14] His conduct has also merited the approval of
the late Pres. Ramon Magsaysay who granted him an absolute and unconditional
pardon for his crime. [15]

An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes all
disabilities resulting from the conviction. In the case of In re Marcelino Lontok,
[16]
 the Court, in dismissing the disbarment proceeding against the respondent
therein, who had been convicted of bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude,
upon the ground that the respondent had been granted plenary pardon for his
crime, applied the rule that "a person reaches both the punishment prescribed for
the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases
the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law
the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the crime," and, "if
granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, and
restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives
him a new credit and capacity."

Under the circumstances, and considering that more than 28 years had already
passed since he was disbarred, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero has been
sufficiently punished and disciplined.[17]

WHEREFORE, the order of disbarment is lifted and Attorney Tranquilino Rovero is

hereby reinstated in the legal profession and restored to the practice of law. The Clerk
of Court is directed to return to him his lawyer's diploma, his certificate of admission to
the Bar, and any other certificate issued to him relative to his admission to the Bar.