PCGG vs.

Sandiganbayan
FACTS
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK
insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the
then Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the
court in GENBANK's liquidation.
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of
recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance, restitution,
accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued
several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the abovenamed persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence
with former President Marcos. These respondents were represented by
Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor
General and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and
became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
'engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent Mendoza
as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank,
on how to proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even filing the petition
for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the Court should resolve whether his
act of advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK
is included within the concept of 'matter under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central
Bank on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts
and in filing the necessary petition. The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No.
107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is different from the
subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which is about the sequestration of the
shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and
liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an
intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.
0096.

Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation case is not

significant and substantial. We note that 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.
Also, the disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been a dead
issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for disqualification in the case at bar
was filed more than four years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction with the Supreme Court which were subsequently
remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances
under which the motion to disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put
petitioner's motive as highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its
strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is claimed
that 'switching sides' carries the danger that former government employee
may compromise confidential official information in the process. But this
concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the
act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure
how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter of
Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares of
respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for there
were no sides.
Catu vs Rellosa
FACTS
Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the possession of one of
the units in the said building by Elizabeth (sister in law of Catu) and Pastor,
who ignored demands to vacate the place. The parties went to the Lupon
Tagapamayapa to try to settle the issue amicably. Respodent Rellosa as
Punong Barangay presided over the conciliation proceedings. The parties
failed to settle their case, and the petitioner brought the case to court.
Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for Elizabeth and
Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an administrative complaint against Rellosa
for his act of impropriety.
IBP committee on bar discipline, after investigation, ruled that Rellosa
violated Rule 6.031 and RA 67132. The committee recommended Rellosas
suspension from practice for 1 month.
ISSUE
Whether Rellosa violated Rule 6.03
HELD
NO. Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government
service. Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he
committed the act complained of.

1
2

As such incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA 7160 3, which
actually allows him to practice his profession. However, being a public official,
he is also governed by Revised Civil Service Rules, which requires him first to
obtain a written permission from his department head who is the Sec. of
DILG. This he failed to do.
SC ruled that Rellosa violated the lawyers oath (to uphold and obey
law), Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct), and Canon 7
(lawyer shall uphold integrity and dignity of the profession), for a lawyer who
disobeys law disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
SC punished Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly advised him to
look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.

Olbes vs. Deciembre

FACTS
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes
for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty.
Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different
maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case
for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file
a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar
Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating
Rule
1.01
of
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE
Whether the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his
fault.
HELD
Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with
conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the
law, but also known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oathbound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible
norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the
quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.
By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the
rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
publics faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of
Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act
of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to
be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of
falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable

practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral
flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that
merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the
depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law
to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is
reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of
one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely
from the practice of law effective immediately.
RE: Administrative Case Atty. Samuel C. Occea
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from the settlement of the estate of
testator William C. Oga. The late testator divided his estate among his seven
children. One of them, Necitas Oga-Occea, was named in the Will as
executrix (female executor, the one will manage the estate until distributed
to the heirs). The estate consists of bank deposits, securities (both here and
in the USA) and real estate in Cebu City and in Ohio, U.S.A. The deceased left
no debt.
Thus, the settlement of the estate should have been simple and
speedy. Atty. Samuel Occena is the husband-lawyer of Necistas. However,
since the death of the testator on February 1, 1963, the settlement of his
estate has not yet been terminated owing largely to the dilatory tactics of
Atty. Occea. From the start of the testate proceedings in 1963, no less than
13 petitions were filed with the SC and the Court of Appeals by Atty. Occea,
questioning the interlocutory orders of the probate court. But most, if not all,
were without merit. On top of that, Atty. Occea also deliberately refuses to
appear in court, comply with Court orders, and submit answers why he should
not be cited in contempt. Instead, he will petition for restraining
orders or file administrative complaints against the presiding judge,
adding to the much delay of the proceeding. All in all, Atty. Occea
succeeded to delay the estate proceeding for 38 years.
ISSUE
Whether Occeas acts constitute a gross violation of his oath as a
lawyer
RULING
Yes. Through his atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the
disposition of
the case for the last 38 years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to
the heirs, but also to Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case. Atty. Occea
has caused a mockery of the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the
administration of justice through his deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly
immoral conduct. Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to practice
law.
Thus, for his serious administrative offenses, punishable under Section
27 of Rule 138, Atty. Occea deserves the ultimate penalty.

WHEREFORE, ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEA is DISBARRED from the

practice of law. His name is STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY.
RE: Petition of Al Argosino to take the Lawyers Oath
Facts
On February 4, 1992, Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged
with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul
Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe
physical injuries upon him in course of hazing conducted as part of the
university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused were
consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two
(2 years), four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.
Eleven (11) days later, Argosino and his colleagues filed an application
for probation with the lower court. The application was granted on June 18,
1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the
probationers initial report to the probation officer assigned to supervise him.
Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam.
He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not allowed to take the
lawyers oath of office.
On April 14, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the
attorneys oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He averred that his
probation period has been terminated. It is noted that this probation period
did not last for more than 10 months.
ISSUE
Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and
be admitted to the practice of law
HELD
Argosino must submit to the Court evidence that he may now be
regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character
imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should show to
the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless
student to the family of the deceased student and to the community at large.
In short, he must show evidence that he is a different person now, that he
has become morally fit for admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written
manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of
Camaligan from notice.
Grande vs. Atty. Evangeline De Silva
FACTS
Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in a
criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina against Sergio Natividad.
During the proceedings, respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the
accused, tendered to complainant a check in the amount of P144,768.00,
drawn against her account with the Philippine National Bank, as settlement of

the civil aspect of the case against her client. Complainant refused to
accept the check, but respondent assured him that the same will be paid
upon
its
presentment to her drawee bank. She manifested that as a
lawyer, she would not issue a check which is not sufficiently funded. Thus,
respondent was prevailed upon by complainant to accept thecheck.
Consequently, he desisted from participating as a complaining witness in the
criminal case, which led to the dismissal of the same and the release of the
accused, Sergio Natividad.
When complainant deposited the check he was told the account was
closed. He demanded the payment of the check from respondent which she
ignored so she filed a criminal case, for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina
against Atty. De Silva and a disbarment case of respondent for deceit and
violation of the Lawyers Oath.
IBP found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of the Lawyers Oath. Thus, he recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
ISSUE
Whether respondent should be suspended
HELD
The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to
accept her personal check by way of settlement for the civil liability of her
client, Sergio Natividad, with the assurance that the check will have sufficient
funds when presented for payment. In doing so, she deceived complainant
into withdrawing his complaint against her client in exchange for a check
which she drew against a closed account.
It is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in issuing a
bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath,
for which she should be accordingly penalized. Such an act constitutes gross
misconduct and the penalties for such malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court, to wit.
Needless to state, respondents persistent refusal to comply with lawful
orders directed at her with not even an explanation for doing so is
contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer is
to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. She
can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to society, to the bar, to
the courts and to her clients.
We cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair
name of an honorable profession. SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS.
Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin
FACTS
A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the
latters failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso won and a writ of execution
was issued in his favor. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property

owned by Damaso worth P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed

the amount of said property was more than the amount of the debt. Judge
Lantin, issuing judge, found merit on this hence he amended his earlier
decision and so he issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to
conduct a public sale on Damasos 210 shares of stock approximately worth
P17k.
Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for
injunction trying to enjoin the public sale. The case eventually reached the
Supreme Court where the SC ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are
without merit; that their numerous petitions for injunction are contemplated
for delay. In said decision, the Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay the
cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their counsels. The counsels
now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they claimed that such
decision reflected adversely against their professionalism; that If there was
delay, it was because petitioners counsel happened to be more assertive . . .
a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned.
ISSUE
Whether the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused
HELD
NO. A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty
his clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not
tolerated is a lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of his clients
position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client,
ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or
lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then
it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and
caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyers
oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.

Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.

FACTS
Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one
Natividad Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo begot a son with Obusan. Obusan later
found out that Estabillo was at the time still validly married with one Tony
Garcia. Four days after the birth of his son with Estabillo, Obusan married
Preciosa Razon. The couple lived more than a year together until one day
when Obusan left the conjugal home and never returned.
Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has
been living with Natividad Estabillo. Preciosa then filed a disbarment case
against Obusan on the grounds of gross immorality and adultery. Preciosa
presented the testimonies of the neighbors of Estabillo who all testified that
Estabillo and Obusan presented themselves as husband and wife in their
community.
ISSUE
Whether Obusan should be disbarred.
HELD
YES. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his wife. He
even failed to file responsive pleadings. Hence, on the strength of the
evidence against him, he is guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning
ones wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married
woman, falls within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community. He failed to maintain the highest degree of
morality expected and required of a member of the bar.
IN RE: Disbarment of Armando Puno
FACTS
Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a
member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. Complainant is
aneducated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of
years. The respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958,
signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having
sexual
intercourse
with
her
on
the
promise
of
marriage.
Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual intercourse because
of respondent's promise of marriage and not because of a desire for sexual
gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion. Complainant gave birth
to a baby boy supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate and to
show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the
complainant was, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent
whenever he asked from her.
The respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint,
and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not
constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127
of the former Rules of Court.

ISSUE
Whether Atty. Puno should be disbarred or suspended.
HELD
YES. One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar
is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court).
It is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the
privilege to maintain good moral character. 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. With respect to the special defense raised by the
respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that the
allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section
25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the
statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to
be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a
lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers cannot be restricted.
Times without number, our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be
removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also
forgross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of court states that:
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfully
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus
disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it
is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must
conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As
stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:
The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the
profession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral
character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and
to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but
the administration of justice.
Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a
consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.