15 Arciga vs Maniwang

FACTS:
complainant: Magdalena Arciga
respondent: atty. segundino maniwang
compalaint for disbarment: 1976 he refused to fulfill his promise of
mrriage to magdalena.

they have a child michael

illicit relationship
history of their relationship

magadalena was a med tech student at cebu inst.

and segundino was a law student in san
jose recoletos they eventually broke up
because magdalena refused to have sexual
intercourse with him

renewed relationship the following month in a

boarding house

asked why she refused to have sex with him she

said because shes still in love with another
man at that time and had a child on it

ignored but took note that statement

repeated acts of cohabitation

segundino moved to davao del sur and continued

his studies in davao city and magdalena
remained in cebu. they exchange letters.

when discovered she was carrying child, they

went to capiz, magdalenas parent to inform
that they were married but not and defer the
church wedding until he passed the bar
exam.

he secured birth certificate and applied for

marriage license.

segundino continued sending letters expressing

concern over the baby. saying they will be
married after he passed the bar. he was not
present when she gave birth but hes there

at the baptism.
segundino passed the bar exams in 1975
he stopped corresponding with Magdalena. Fearing that there was
something amiss, Magdalena went to Davao in July,
1975 to contact her lover. Segundino told her that they
could not get married for lack of money. She went back to
Ivisan.
- on december 1975, she followed him and knew he was married
to another woman named Erlinda Ang on Nov. 25, 1975.
broken hearted returned to davao
- he inflicted phy inj to her because she confronted erlinda ang.
she reported the assault in a police station
- he admitted their relationship and the promise of marriage. he
breached because of magdalenas shedy past. (accused in
court for oral defamation and has illegitimate child before
michael)
- SOLGEN: dismissal of case. cohabitation and breach of
promise to marry not warrant disarment
ISSUE: WON breach of promise to marry warrants disbrament
HELD: NO
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the
complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to
warrant disbarment.
There are cited cases similar to this
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the
bar, then the continued possession of good moral character
is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal
profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when
a lawyer ceases to have good moral character (Royong vs.
Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
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. It is difficult to state with precision
and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly
immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and

obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a

member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be
unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct w hich is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959).
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be
inconsonance with the canons of the moral code but he is
not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or
deviation from the path of rectitude is not glaringly
scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to the
opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises.
Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his
wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on
the surrounding circumstances.
This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned
morality still prevailed, observed that "the legislator well
knows the frailty of the flesh and the ease with which a man,
whose sens e of dignity, honor and morality is not well
cultivated, falls into temptation when alone with one of the
fair sex toward whom he feels himself attracted. An occasion
is so inducive to sin or crime that the saying "A fair booty
makes many a thief" or "An open door may tempt a saint
has become general."

19 edgardo areola vs atty maria vilma mendoza

FACTS:

Admin complaint of areola aka muhammad kahadafy against atty.a

mendoza from PAO
violation of her attorney s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
- letter complaint to ibp AREOLA was filing in behalf of co detainees
because during prisoners week in antipolo jail atty mendoza
speech says: give to him their moneys sya na ang bahala at kay
judge martin at fiscal. or girls, iyakan nalng si judge malambot ang
puso nun
- helped co-detainees prepare pleadings but
- mendozas answer: filing of the administrative complaint against
her is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also filed
several administrative cases against judges in the courts of
Antipolo City including the jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where
Areola was previously det ained. These actuations show that
Areola has a penchant for filing various charges against anybody
who does not accede to his demand
- investigating commissioner: Compla inant is knowledgeable in the
field of law. While he may be of servi ce to his fellow detainees,
he must, however, be subservient to the skills and knowledge of
a full fledged lawyer. He however found no convincing
evidence to prove that Atty. Mendoza received money from
Areolas co-detainees as alleged. The charges against Atty.
Mendoza were also un corroborated
- Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer tha t she advised her clients
and their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg
and cry" so that their motions would be granted and their cases
against them would be dismissed
- what mendoza says degrades the imae of and lessens the confidence
of the public in the judiciary. - i.c. - suspended for 2 months board of governors: adopted
ISSUE: guilty of giving improper advice? yes
HELD: - Lacks evidence to support the allegation - Not proper
party to file complaint. even for his co-detainees, did not sign

any complaint. - The Court agrees with the observations of

the Invest igating Commissioner that Areola initiated this
complaint when he felt insulted because Atty. Men doza
refused to acknowledge the pleadings and motions he
prepared for his co-detainees who a re PAO clients of
Atty. Mendoza. 18 It appears that Areola is quite
knowledgeable with Philippi ne laws. However, no matter
how good he thinks he is, he is still not a law yer. He is not
authorized to give legal advice and file pleadings by himself
before the courts. His fam iliarity with Philippine laws should
be put to good use by cooperating with the PAO instead of
filing baseless complaints against lawyers and other
government authorities. It seems to the Court that Areola
thinks of himself as more intelligent and better than Atty.
Mendoza, based o n his criticisms against her.
- Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty.
Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in
violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule
1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer shall impress upon
his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness."
Atty. Mendozas improper advice only lessens the confidence of
the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge,
without pressure or influence from external forces or factors
according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendozas careless
remark is uncalled for. It must be remembered that a
lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice.
To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate . His
conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable,
fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in
the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is
condemnable and unethical.

In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of

suspension for two (2) months as excessive and not
commensurate to Atty. Mendozas infraction. 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.
While her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her
comment is not disparaging and reproachful so asto cause
dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary. In several
administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing
the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.
Factors such as the respon dents length of service, the
respondents acknowledgement of his or her infractions
a nd feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian
and equitable considerations, respondents advanced age,
among other things, have had varying significance in the
Courts determination of the imposable penalty.
The Court takes note of Atty. Mendozas lack of ill-motive in the
present case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main
source of livelihood.
Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless
and the only reason why this was ever given consideration
was due to Atty. Mendozas own admission. For these
reasons, the Court deems it just to modify and reduce the
penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors
reprimand. stern warning