Rule 1.

01 Unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct

C.E. PIATT, vs. PERFECTO ABORDO 58 Phil. 350 (1933) – MALCOLM, J.:
Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
The Petitioner, C.E. Piatt, filed a complaint WON Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Yes, Atty. Abordo should be suspended - Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 which
to Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, should be suspended. because he attempted to engage in an provides “A lawyer shall not
Philippine Bar, who accepted the offer of opium deal in direct contravention of the engage in unlawful, dishonest,
two individuals to sell him a quantity of criminal law of the Philippine Island. He as immoral or deceitful conduct.”
opium, a prohibited drug in the Philippines. a member of the bar he should sacredly - Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Abordo was picked up, by one of the bound to uphold the laws. He violated the Procedure enumerates the
individuals who had made him the opium Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 which provides “A grounds for the suspension or
proposition, and was taken to Rizal Avenue lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, disbarment of a lawyer.
Extension outside of the city limits where dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
they found a number of persons awaiting and also it is indicated in the Section 21 of
them in an automobile. The can which the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates
contained opium was loaded in the the grounds for the suspension or
automobile which brought Abordo to the disbarment of a lawyer.
scene of the delivery, but in returning to
Manila another automobile overtook them
and pretending to be constabulary soldiers,
told him to stop. Instead Abordo drew his
revolver and commanding the driver of the
car to turn into Calle Vito Cruz was able to
evade his pursuers and to arrive safely at
his home in Pasay. When he got home, he
examined the contents of the can and
found it to contain fake opium and sand.
Thereupon Abordo reported to the Luneta
Police Station of Manila that he had been
robbed of P600. Two individuals were later
arrested, charged with the crime of estafa,
and convicted.

He admitted that he entered into the

transaction, adding that "he is sincerely
sorry for it and vows not to repeat". His
defense is that "there being no evidence in
the record establishing the relationship of
attorney and client between the
respondent and the malefactors", and "the
act complained of not having been
committed in the exercise of his profession
of attorney-at-law", the acts he committed
could not affect his status as attorney-at-
law and could not, therefore, constitute a
ground for disciplinary action.
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Facts
Lesli Ui filed an administrative complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio
on the ground of immorality, for allegedly
carrying an immoral relationship with
Carlos Ui, her (Lesli) husband.
In the proceeding before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Iris
attached a photocopy of a marriage
certificate that said that she and Carlos got
married in 1985 but according to the
certificate of marriage obtained from the
Hawaii State Department of Health, they
were married in 1987.
Issue/s
Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio
conducted herself in an immoral manner
for which she deserves to be barred from
the practice of law.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
NO. The practice of law is a privilege. The CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
bar candidate does not have the right to THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
enjoy the practice of the legal profession OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
simply by passing the bar, he must also RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
have a continued possession of good PROCESSES.
moral character. A lawyer may be
disbarred for grossly immoral conduct , Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
which has been defined as the conduct unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and conduct.
which shows a moral indifference to the
good and respectable members of the
community. Lawyers, as keepers of public
faith, are burdened with a higher degree of
social responsibility and thus must handle
their personal affairs with great caution.
Iris Bonifacio was imprudent in managing
her personal affairs. However the fact
remains that her relationship with Carlos,
clothed as it was with what she believed as
a valid marriage, cannot be considered
immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
For such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, it must be “grossly immoral”, it must
be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
A lawyer is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships but must also
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing
the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. Her act of
distancing herself on her discovery that
Carlos was married proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high
moral standard of the legal profession.
On the matter of the falsified marriage
certificate, it is contrary to human
experience and highly improbable that she
did not know the year of her marriage or
she failed to check that the information on
the document she attached to her Answer
were correct. Lawyers are called upon to
safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds and acts of malpractice.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct
Figueroa v Barranco (SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997)
Facts Issue/s
Respondent Simeon Barranco and complainant WoN the IBP erred in their
Patricia Figueroa were townmates in Janiuay, decision to allow the oath-
Iloilo. They were dating since 1953, and taking.
complainant first acceded to sexual congress in
1960. Their intimacy yielded a son, Rafael, in
December 11, 1964. Alleged by the complainant,
respondent made multiple promises of marriage if
he passed the bar exams. Respondent passed the
1970 bar exams after 4 attempts. Their
relationship ended when she learned that in 1971,
respondent married another woman. Before he
could take the lawyer’s oath, complainant
petitioned to the court to disallow him from take
the oath.
In 1974, respondent prayed to dismiss the case,
which was denied by the Court. The respondent
made 2 more attempts to dismiss in 1979 and
1982, which were denied. In his 4th attempt in
1988, by citing his civic works and good standing
in the community, he was almost granted a
schedule to take the oath, only to be denied again
by the court in response to complainant’s
opposition. In 1993, the case was referred to the
IBP.
IBP’s report dated May 17, 1997 recommended
the dismissal of the case and respondent be
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
Topic (if first case under the topic)
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR v ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P. SALAYON AC No. 4680, 29 August 2000, 339 SCRA 154 – Mendoza, J.
Facts Issue/s Ruling
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
No. The facts do not constitute gross immorality -CANON 1 Rule 1.01
warranting the permanent exclusion of respondent from
legal profession. Engaging in premarital sexual relations
with complainant and promises to marry may suggest a
doubtful moral character, but the same does not
constitute grossly immoral conduct.
Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
sexual relations were evidently consensual. She
continued to be respondent’s girlfriend even after the
birth of their son, until 1971. Complainant was an adult,
not a young girl who could be led astray. SC stated: “We
cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his
dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond
which should be entered into because of love, not for any
other reason.”
The complainant acted like a vengeful woman who was
scorned, bitter, and unforgiving to the end. She intends
respondent to suffer perpetually it seems, sacrificing the
profession he worked very hard to be admitted to.
The 26 years that respondent has been prevented from
practicing law constitute sufficient punishment for his
past actions.
Instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
Petitioner, Pimentel who was running for senator in
the 1995 elections, filed a complaint for disbarment
against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and
Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious
breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath in
connection with the discharge of their duties as
members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in
the May 8, 1995 elections
Whether or not respondents
were guilty of misconduct
and violation of the lawyer’s
oath.
The court finds the respondents
guilty
A lawyer who holds a government position may not
be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if the misconduct
also constitutes a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or
is of such character as to affect his qualification as
a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part,
such individual may be disciplined as a member of
the bar for such misconduct

Petitioner alleges that, in violation of R.A.No. 6646, By certifying as true and correct the SoVs in
section 27(b), respondents tampered with the question, respondents committed a breach of
votes received by him, through illegal Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a
padding. He maintains that, by signing the lawyer shall not engage in "unlawful, dishonest,
Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of immoral or deceitful conduct." By express provision
Canvass (CoC) despite respondents' knowledge of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in
that some of the entries therein were, the latter the government service. In addition, they likewise
committed a serious breach of public trust and their violated their oath of office as lawyers to "do no
lawyer’s oath. falsehood."

Respondents denied the allegations against them.

They alleged that the preparation of the SoVs was
made by the 12 canvassing committees which the
Board had constituted to assist in the canvassing.
They claimed that the errors pointed out by
complainant could be attributed to honest mistake,
oversight, and/or fatigue.

In his reply, complainant counters that respondents

should be held responsible for the illegal padding of
the votes considering the nature and extent of the
irregularities and the fact that the canvassing of the
election returns was done under their control and
supervision.
Rule 1.01
Salvacion Cordova vs. Atty. Laurence Cordova
GR NO. AC No 3249 (1989) – Ponente
Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
Petitoner Salvacion Cordova, filed a Whether or not Cordova should be merely No. He should be suspended indefinitely
complaint against his husband Atty. reprimanded. until he presents evidence that he has
Laurence Cordova (respondent Cordova), been morally reformed and that there was
with immorality and acts of an true reconciliation between him and his
unbecoming a member of the Bar in the wife. Before a person can be admitted to
IBP Commission. The Comission ordered the bar, one requirement is that he
petitioner to submit evidence against her possesses good moral character. That
husband but she failed to do so and she requirement is not exhausted and
informed the Commission that she and dispensed with upon admission to
Atty Laurence had already “reconciled”. membership of the bar. On the contrary,
They were ordered to file a motion to that requirement persists as a continuing
dismiss but they failed to do so. According condition for membership in the Bar in
to the IBP Commission’s investigation, good standing. The moral delinquency
Respondent Cordova is cohabiting with that affects the fitness of a member of the
Fely Holdago who is also married to bar to continue as such includes conduct
another man. Fely moved to Surigao Del that outrages the generally accepted
Sur with respondent Cordova, they lived moral standards of the community,
as husband and wife, respondent conduct for instance, which makes “a
introducing fely as his wife and Fely mockery of the inviolable social institution
Holdago is using Fely Cordova as her or marriage” such was the case in the
name. After a year, Respondent Cordova case at bar.
reconciled with her wife (Salvacion
Cordova) and promised to leave Fely and
he brought his legitimate family to Surigao
Del Sur but after sometime Respondent
would, however, frequently come home
from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and
continued to neglect the support of his
legitimate family. complainant found,that
respondent Cordova was no longer living
with her (complainant's) children in their
conjugal home; that respondent Cordova
was living with another mistress, one
Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his
younger daughter Melanie along with him.
Respondent and his new mistress hid
Melanie from the complinant, compelling
complainant to go to court and to take
back her daughter by habeas corpus. The
Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her
custody of their children.

Notwithstanding respondent's promises to

reform, he continued to live with Luisita
Magallanes as her husband and
continued to fail to give support to his
legitimate family.
People vs. Tuanda [A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990]
Facts Issue/s
Atty. Fe Tuanda was convicted by the Whether or not the imposed suspension
Regional Trial Court of Manila in violation for Atty. Tuanda may be lifted.
of B.P. 22 with a fine and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
indemnify the complainant Herminia
Marquez. Respondent appealed. The
Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the
decision of the trial court and imposed
upon Atty. Fe Tuanda, in addition, the
suspension from the practice of law until
further orders from the Supreme Court.
The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal
with the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals noted respondent’s Notice of
Appeal and advised her “to address her
Notice of Appeal to the Honorable
Supreme Court, the proper forum.” In the
said motion, responded stated:
that suspension from the practice of law is
indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty
aggravating the lower court’s penalty of
fine considering that accused-appellant’s
action on the case during the trial on the
merits at the lower court has always been
motivated purely by sincere belief that she
is innocent of the offense charged nor of
the intention to cause damage to the
herein plaintiff-appellee.
Canon 1(Rule 1.01)
Castillo vda. de Mijares v. Villaluz A.C. N0. 4431 (1997) – Ponente
Facts
Complainant (De Mijares) is the presiding judge
of branch 108 of the RTC, Pasay.
Respondent (Villaluz) a retired justice of the CA,
now a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime
Commission (headed by VP Joseph Estrada)
Issue/s
Whether or not Justice Villaluz is
guilty of immoral conduct in
violation of rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility by
marrying another woman
subsequent to his marriage with
De Mijares
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
NO. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension Lawyers; Suspension; Moral
denied. Turpitude; Criminal Law; Bouncing
Checks Law; Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a
The crimes of which respondent was serious criminal offense which affects
convicted also import deceit and violation public interest and public order; it is a
of her attorney’s oath and the Code of crime involving moral turpitude, hence,
Professional Responsibility under both of conviction of such crime justifies
which she was bound to “obey the laws of petitioner’s suspension from the practice
the land.” Conviction of a crime involving of law.
moral turpitude might not (as in the instant
case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not)
relate to the exercise of the profession of
a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to
and affects the good moral character of a
person convicted of such offense.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
(respondent, entered into subject marriage in an effort to 1.01 of the Code of
save the complainant from the charge of immorality against Professional
her) Responsibility
SC: regardless of the intention of respondent in saying
“I do” with complainant before a competent authority,
all ingredients of a valid marriage were present. His
consent thereto was freely given.
A sworn complaint for the disbarment of Judge
Pricilla Castillo vda de mijares to Onofre Villaluz,
with gross immorality and grave misconduct.
Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of
her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She obtained
a decree declaring her husband presumptively
dead, after an absence of 16 years.
She got married to respondent (Villaluz) after
the reception, the newlyweds resumed to their
usual work and activities. At 6pm the respondent
(villaluz) fetched complainant (De Mijares) from
her house. When they reached the condominium
unit of Villaluz, De Mijares got a call from a
woman offending her with insulting remarks. She
confronted Villaluz on the identity of such caller
and they had an argument and an exchange of
harsh words.
Since then they lived separately.
Several months later De Mijares learned from
Manila RTC judge that he solemnized a
marriage between the former justice Onofre
Villaluz and a certain Lydia Geraldez.
Complainant then filed a complaint against
respondent for disbarment for the latter
immorally and bigamously entered into
a second marriage while having a subsisting
marriage and distorted the truth by stating
his civil status as single.
In his defense (Villaluz), he contended that his
marriage to the complainant judge was a
“sham marriage”; that he voluntarily signed
the marriage contract to help her in the
administrative case for immorality filed against her
by her legal researcher. Likewise, he maintained
that when he contracted his marriage with
complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with
his first wife because the decision declaring the
annulment of such marriage had not yet become
final and executory or published.
Judge Purisima found the respondent guilty
of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct submitted his report and
recommendations to the SC.
( The judgment in civil case declaring the annulment of
marriage between respondent and the first wife had not
attained complete finality)
SC: If so, then the marriage between complainant and
respondent is not void but only voidable.
By saying that his marriage to petitioner was just a sham
marriage will not justify his actuations. It does not convince,
it does not speak well of respondents sense of social
propriety and moral values. This is aggravated by the fact
that he is not a layman nor even just an ordinary
lawyer, but a former Judge of the Circuit Criminal
Court and, thereafter, a Justice of the Court of Appeals
who cannot but have been fully aware of the
consequence of a marriage celebrated with all the
necessary legal requisites.
From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent dismally
fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for
continued membership in the legal profession.
The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires
that he shall be a person of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission
to the practice of law; its continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law. Under Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of
grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for
suspension or disbarment of lawyers.
However, considering that respondent is in the declining
years of his life; that his impulsive conduct during some
episodes of the investigation reveal a degree of aberrant
reactive behavior probably ascribable to advanced age;
and the undeniable fact that he has rendered some years
of commendable service in the judiciary, the Court feels
that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty in this
peculiar case.
WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice
Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with
the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be
imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense
hereafter.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct
Stemmerik v. Mas [AC No. 8010, 16 June 2009; 589 SCRA 114]
Facts Issue/s
Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and WoN the respondent
resident of Denmark. He visited the Philippines should be disbarred
and met Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, herein respondent.
Atty. Mas helped Stermmerik in acquiring a real
property in Quarry, Agustin, Cawag, Subic,
Zambales. He assured the petitioner that the
property was alienable.
Petitioner returned to Denmark and entrusted the
processing of the necessary documents to the
respondent. Respondent prepared a contract to
sell the property between petitioner and Bonifacio
de Mesa, the owner of the property. Respondent
made it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the
property to petitioner and that de Mesa thereafter
sold the property to Gonzales who made the
purchase for and in behalf of the petitioner. The
petitioner gave Php 3.8M to respondent as the
purchase price of the land.
The petitioner tried to contact the respondent;
however the latter refused to answer petitioner’s
calls and messages. Petitioner then visited the
Philippines and later found out that aliens cannot
own land under Philippine laws.
IBP Olongapo Chapter informed the petitioner that
the respondent had already abandoned his law
office in Olongapo City.
The petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment
against respondent in the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
Yes. The respondent is guilty of culpable violation of the Code of -CANON 1 Rule 1.01
Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics in legal -Sec 7, Art XII of
profession. the Constitution.
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Lawyers should not simply obey the laws, they should also inspire
respect for and obedience thereto by serving exemplars worthy of
emulation. The oath taken by them to support the Constitution is
neither formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that
should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.
The respondent also violated Sec 7, Art XII of
the Constitution.
SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
By advising the petitioner that a foreigner could legally and
validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring
petitioner that the property was alienable, respondent
deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client.
Respondent is disbarred
A.M. No. 3249 November 29, 1989

SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent
Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
- Complainant and respondent Cordova got married on 6 June 1976 and out of this WON the Atty. Cordova Cordova is SUSPENDED indefinitely
marriage, two (2) children were born. should be penalized and/or until further orders.
- In 1985, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of suspended from his practice
Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province. of law for his immoral - After a review of the record, the
- He went to Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur and cohabited with one Fely G. practices in the case at bar. Court agrees with the findings of
Holgado. fact of the IBP Board that
- Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and children to stay regardless of the reconciliation
with respondent. They lived together as husband and wife. Fely even introduces between complainant and
herself as Fely Cordova. respondent, it does not excuse
- Respondent Cordova gave Holgado funds with which to establish a sari-sari store in and wipe away the misconduct
the public market at Bislig, while at the same time failing to support his legitimate and immoral behavior of the
family. respondent carried out in public,
- In 1986, respondent Cordova and his wife had an apparent reconciliation. He and necessarily adversely
promised that he would separate from Holgado and change for the better. However, reflecting upon him as a member
he still frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to of the Bar and upon the Philippine
neglect the support of his legitimate family. Bar itself.
- When her daughter was hospitalized in 1987, complainant found, upon returning from - Respondent is then suspended
a trip to Manila that respondent Cordova was no longer in their conjugal home. He from the practice of law
was again cohabiting with another mistress, Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his indefinitely and until farther
younger daughter Melanie with him. orders. The Court will consider
- They even hid the child from the complainant, compelling her to go to court and to lifting his suspension when
take back her daughter by habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her respondent Cordova submits
custody of their children. proof that he has and continues to
- Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to live with provide for the support of his
Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate legitimate family and that he has
family. given up the immoral course of
- SalvacionDelizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with immorality conduct that he has clung to.
and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter-complaint was forwarded by - An applicant for admission to
the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline. membership in the bar is required
- Respondent was declared in default for failure to file an answer to the complaint within to show that he is possessed of
fifteen (15) days from notice as Ordered by the Commission. good moral character. That
- The same Order required complainant to submit before the Commission her requirement persists as a
evidence ex parte. But instead of complying, the complainant asked to reschedule the continuing condition for
hearing thrice then failed to appear on the day itself. membership in the Bar in good
- Finally the Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant, standing.
stating that complainant and respondent had already reconciled with each other. The
Commission the required the party to file a formal motion to dismiss the complain
within 15 days but neither party responded and nothing was heard from both of them
since then.
Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000

CRISTINO G. CALUB, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER, respondent
In the morning of January 20, 1975, while Calub was away, Atty. Abraham A. Suller went WON the Atty. Suller should Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED "A lawyer may be disbarred or
to the complainant's abode in Aringay, La Union. be penalized and/or from the practice of law and his name suspended for misconduct,
suspended from his practice be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. whether in his professional or
As the respondent was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the complainant's wife let him of law for his immoral private capacity, which shows
in. Thereafter, respondent began touching her in different parts of her body. When she practices in the case at bar -The testimonies of witnesses in the him to be wanting in moral
protested, respondent threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. criminal complaint, particularly that of character, in honesty, probity
When Calub entered the house, he saw his wife and respondent having sexual intercourse the complainant suffice to show that and good demeanor or
on the bed.She was kicking Atty. Suller with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms respondent acted in a grossly unworthy to continue as an
and other leg, preventing her from defending herself. reprehensible manner in having officer of the court."
carnal knowledge of his neighbor's
On January 23, 1975, complainant filed with the Municipal Court, La Union a criminal wife without her consent in her very
complaint for rape against respondent. On June 3, 1975, Cristino G. Calub filed with the home.
Supreme Court the instant complaint for disbarment. -Suspension for one year
recommended by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines is not sufficient
The Court required respondent to file an answer within ten (10) days from notice. punishment for the immoral act of
Respondent filed his answer. He denied the accusation as a fabrication.The Court referred respondent.
the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. -The rape of his neighbor's wife
constituted serious moral depravity
In 1991, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Committee on Bar Discipline, even if his guilt was not proved
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. On January 23, 1992, the Committee issued an order beyond reasonable doubt in the
terminating the proceedings and considering the case submitted for resolution as notice criminal prosecution for rape.
to complainant remained unserved while respondent failed to appear despite due notice. -The privilege to practice law is
bestowed upon individuals who are
The Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution competent intellectually, academically
recommending that the disciplinary penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a and, equally important, morally.
period of one (1) year be meted on respondent. "Good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to
the legal profession, but it must also
The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure be possessed at all times in order to
of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is maintain one's good standing in that
not determinative of this administrative case. exclusive and honored fraternity."
ALFREDO B. ROA vs. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010 – Carpio, J
Facts: Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
1. The case stemmed from a transaction of sale of a parcel of land entered into by the 1. WON a Moreno violated Dissents, if any.
parties; Rule 1.01 of the Code 1. Yes. The Court ordered Moreno
2. In September 1988, Moreno sold a parcel of land to Roa for P70,000 in cash as full of Professional to be suspended for two (2) Section 27. Attorneys
payment; Responsibility; years from the practice of law. removed or suspended by
3. Moreno failed to issue a deed of sale, and instead issued a temporary receipt and a 2. WON the Court may However, the Court stated that Supreme Court on what
Certificate of Land Occupancy to Roa and assured the Roa that he may used them compel Moreno to they cannot sustain the IBP’s grounds. — A member of the
from then on; return the sum of recommendation ordering bar may be removed or
4. Roa found out that the CLO could not be registered with the Registry of Deeds. money to Roa. respondent to return the money suspended from his office
When he went to see Moreno, the latter admitted that the land belong to another paid by complainant. In as attorney by the Supreme
person, and that the real owner was a certain Rubio, and that the parcel of land had disciplinary proceedings against Court for any deceit,
pending legal controversies; lawyers, the only issue is malpractice, or other gross
5. On February 2001, Roa sent a demand letter to Moreno, demanding the return of whether the officer of the court is misconduct in such office,
the money that was paid as consideration for the land; still fit to be allowed to continue grossly immoral conduct, or
6. Roa filed a criminal case against Moreno at MTC Branch 2 of Antipolo. The trial as a member of the Bar. by reason of his conviction of a
court rendered a decision in favor of Roa, convicting Moreno of the crime of other crime involving moral
 forms of swindling under Art. 316, par 1 of the RPC and sentencing him to suffer Even though the parties gave turpitude, or for any violation of
the penalty of 1 month imprisonment and 1 day and compelling him to return the two (2) different set of facts, the the oath which he is required
amount of P70,000 to Roa; High Court gave credence to to take before the admission to
7. Moreno appealed to the RTC Branch 74 of Antipolo, and the RTC reversed and set Roa’s version. The Court noted practice, or for a wilfull
aside the decision of the MTC, acquitting Moreno for lack of evidence establishing that Moreno’s credibility was disobedience of any lawful
Moreno’s guild beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC further added, in their Decision highly questionable. Moreno order of a superior court, or for
dated 20 December 2005, that Roa’s remedy was to institute a civil case for even issued a bogus Certificate corruptly or willful appearing as
recovery of the sum of money paid to Moreno; of Land Occupancy to Roa and an attorney for a party to a
8. On February 2006, Roa field a case with the IBP against Moreno. In Moreno’s contains a verification by the case without authority so to do.
answer to the complaint lodged at the IBP, he explained that what he sold to “Lead, Record Department” that The practice of soliciting cases
complainant was merely the right over the use of the lot, not the lot itself. He the lot plan “conforms with the at law for the purpose of gain,
maintained that he never met the Roa during the negotiations for the sale of said record on file”. It is even printed either personally or through
right. He claimed it was a certain Benjamin Hermida who received the purchase to a parchment paper strikingly paid agents or brokers,
price. Moreno further alleged that it was one Edwin Tan, and not Roa, who paid the similar to certificate of title and constitutes malpractice.
purchase price; can easily pass off as a
9. Upon hearing, Roa narrated that it was Moreno who personally sold to him the document evidencing title. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
parcel of land in question and that Moreno assured him that the papers would be Code of Professional
processed upon payment. Moreno did not appear at the hearing despite receipt of 2. However, the Court stated that Responsibility provides:
notice; they cannot sustain the IBP’s
10. The Commissioner of the IBP CBD found Moreno guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and recommendation ordering Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not
7.03 of the CPR. IBP CBD recommended that Moreno be suspended from the respondent to return the money engage in unlawful,
practice of law for 3 months and immediately deliver the amount paid for the land to paid by complainant. In dishonest, immoral, or
Roa; disciplinary proceedings against deceitful conduct.
11. The IBP BoG forwarded the case to the SC. lawyers, the only issue is
whether the officer of the court is
still fit to be allowed to continue
as a member of the Bar.
Respondent failed to live up to
the strict standard of
professionalism required by the
Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent’s
acts violated the trust and
respect complainant reposed in
him as a member of the Bar and
an officer of the court.

Topic (if first case under the topic) Rule 1.01 No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct
JOCELYN DE LEON vs. ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013– Bersamin, J
Facts: Issue/s Ruling: Relevant Provisions
 Jocelyn de Leon filed a criminal case against Atty. Pedrena (a PAO lawyer) 1. WON his acts Dissents, if any.
for acts of sexual harassment against a female client (acts of lasciviousness) constitutes a violation of Yes.
 De Leon’s version: Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of Section 27.Attorneys removed
She went to PAO to inquire to Atty. Pedrena about her case case (child Rules of Court His acts against De Leon constituted or suspended by Supreme
support case against her husband for their 2 minor children). She waited for a misconduct. Court on what grounds. — A
him then they ate lunch together and discussed the it. He insisted on giving a member of the bar may be
ride to De Leon to the jeepney station. While they were in Atty.Pedrena’s car, Immoral conduct is gross when it is so removed or suspended from
he held her hand and insisted her to get closer with him. She responded by corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, his office as attorney by the
saying “AYOKO HO!” but he persisted in trying to get hold of her hand and or so unprincipled as to be Supreme Court for any deceit,
 continued rubbing her left leg. As she was attempting to remove his hand reprehensible to a high degree, or
from her leg, he grabbed her hand and forced it to put on his penis and when committed under such
pressed his finger against her private part. scandalous or revolting
 He let her out of the car after she insist and reminded her to see him on Feb circumstances as to shock the
1, 2006 for the continuation of hearing of her. She brought her five-year-old community’s sense of decency.
child to avoid another incident but she wasn’ able to see Atty, Pedrena so
she just signed some papers. His misconduct is aggravated by the
 Atty. Pedrena’s version: fact that Public Attorneys are
He gave a ride to De Leon but denied making sexual advances on her. She mandated to provide free legal
sat very close to him that he even had a hard time shifting gears and the ride service and disregarded his oath as
lasted for only 2-3 min. He also had another passenger in the car by the public officer to serve others and to
name of Emma Crespo who witnessed that De Leon took Pedrena’s be accountable at all times.
cellphone from the handbrake box of the car (thus his basis for his complaint
of theft against De Leon) Yet, even though the Court agree with
 IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. the findings of the IBP, the Court
Perena and striking off of his name in the Roll of Attorneys considers the recommended penalty
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the report of the of suspension for six months not
Commissioner and imposed a suspension of 3 months but is later increased to 6 commensurate with the gravity of the
months after denying Pedrena’s motion for recon offensive acts committed.
The Supreme Court ordered Atty
Pedreña to be suspended for 2 years
from the practice of law with STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
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 oathwhich he is
required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a
wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willful
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.

In determining the appropriate penalty

to be imposed on Atty. Pedreña,
therefore, the High Court took into
consideration judicial precedents on
gross immoral conduct bearing on
sexual matters.

Advincula v. Macabata – lawyer

kissed her client on the lips –
offensive and undesirable but not
grossly immoral -reprimanded

Barrientos v. Daarol – dibarred– illicit

sexual relations + deceit. Proposed to
marry 20-year-old girl, breached
promise to marry, suggested to abort
the baby and later deserted them

Delos Reyes v. Aznar – married man

had carnal knowledge with student
under threat to flunk her with all her
subjects if she refused – disbarred
for grossly immoral conduct
 Acts committed by Atty. Pedrena are
not of the same degree as acts cited
under judicial precedent. He did not
employ scheme to satiate his lust,
instead, he desisted upon the first
signs of the complainant’s firm refusal
to give in to his advances.

611 scra 508

Garrido v Garrido
Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.

- MaelotiseaGarrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for
disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido (Atty. Garrido) and
Atty. RomanaP.Valencia (Atty. Valencia) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline charging them with gross
immorality.
- Maelotisea contention:
- She is the legal wife of Atty. Angel Garrido by virtue of marriage on June 23,
1962 at San Marcelino Church, Ermita, Manila
- That they had 6 children
- That Atty. Garrido cheated on her and left their conjugal home sometime in
1993
- That since he left the conjugal home he failed and still failing to give the
needed financial support to the prejudice of the children who stopped
schooling because of financial constraints.
- As side from her petition of disbarment, she also filed a case of bigamy in trial
court.
- Atty. Angel Garrido’s contention:
- he alleged that Maelotisea was not his legal wife, as he was already married
to Constancia David (Constancia) when he married Maelotisea
- Atty. Garrido denied that he failed to give financial support to his children with
Maelotisea, emphasizing that all his six (6) children were educated in private
schools
- He further alleged that Maelotisea knew all his escapades and understood his
bad boy image before she married him in 1962
- That he met Atty. Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia to whom he
confided his difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal problems and
his financial difficulties with his second family
- Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he
became a member of the bar on May 11, 1979, with the third marriage
contracted after the death of Constancia on December 26, 1977. Likewise,
his children with Maelotisea were born before he became a lawyer.
- Atty. Valencia’s contention
- She denied that she was a mistress since the marriage between Atty. Garrido
and Maelotisea was null and void due to the subsisting marriage of
Atty.Garrido to Constancia.
- She claimed that Maelotisea knew of the romantic relationship between her
and Atty. Garrido,andMaelotisea just kept silent about the scenario
- He violated ethical rules of the profession- Rule 1.01
WON both Atty. Garrido and
Atty. Valencia committed
gross immorality that would
warrant their disbarment
YES. (1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the lawyers oath,
practice of law for gross immorality, violation of the Section 20(a) of
Lawyers Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 Rule 138 of the
and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Rules of Court,[29]
Responsibility; and and Canon 1 of the
(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the Code of
practice of law for gross immorality, violation of Professional
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility -]all of
Responsibility. which commonly
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, require him to obey
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral the laws of the land.
indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. Immoral
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute
a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
as to shock the communitys sense of decency. We
make these distinctions as the supreme penalty of
disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly
immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
Atty. Garrido
Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the
legal profession, specifically, violations of the bar
admission rules, of his lawyers oath, and of the
ethical rules of the profession.
he violated his lawyers oath, Section 20(a) of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court,[29] and Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility -]all of which
commonly require him to obey the laws of the land.
he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered
this second marriage while his first marriage with
Constancia was subsisting.
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
- Parties filed the following motions before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline:
- the respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings- (in view of the
concubinage filed by M, and the Petition to Nullify the marriage filed by Atty.
Garrido) The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied this motion for lack
of merit.
- respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaints after the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Garrido and
Maelotisea an absolute nullity. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline also
denied this motion.
- Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against
the respondents, arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with
Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her six (6) children. The IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline likewise denied this motion.
commands that he shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; Canon 7 of
the same Code, which demands that [a] lawyer shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that, [a]
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
When he violated the law and distorted it to cater to
his own personal needs and selfish motives, he
discredited the legal profession and created the
public impression that laws are mere tools of
convenience that can be used, bended and abused
to satisfy personal whims and desires. In this case,
he also used the law to free him from unwanted
relationships.
Atty. Valencia: (arguments)
While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garridos
marriage with Maelotisea was null and void, the fact
remains that he took a man away from a woman
who bore him six (6) children. Ordinary decency
would have required her to ward off Atty. Garridos
advances, as he was a married man, in fact a twice-
married man with both marriages subsisting at that
time; she should have said no to Atty. Garrido from
the very start. Instead, she continued her liaison
with Atty. Garrido, driving him, upon the death of
Constancia, away from legitimizing his relationship
with Maelotisea and their children. Worse than this,
because of Atty. Valencias presence and
willingness, Atty. Garrido even left his second family
and six children for a third marriage with her. This
scenario smacks of immorality even if viewed
outside of the prism of law. the celebration of their
marriage in Hongkong leads us to the opposite
conclusion; they wanted to marry in Hongkong for
the added security of avoiding any charge of bigamy
by entering into the subsequent marriage outside
Philippine jurisdiction.
Atty. Valencia did not mind at all sharing her
husband with another woman. This, to us, is a clear
demonstration of Atty. Valencias perverse sense of
moral values.
We find that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the
dignity of and discredited the legal profession. She
simply failed in her duty as a lawyer to adhere
unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality.
A.C. No. 9608 November 27, 2012
MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, Respondent.
 Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a
Complaint for Disbarment or Suspension before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against respondent Atty.
Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct."
 Sometime in December 2001, at around midnight, while Ventura was
sleeping in the maid’s room at respondent’s house when respondent entered
and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her breast, and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and found
blood stain in her panty. Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm.
He brought her to an old shanty where he sexually abused her. Thereafter,
respondent gave her five hundred pesos and warned her not to tell anyone
what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
 In her Sworn Statement dated 19 April 2002 and a Supplemental-Complaint
dated 10 May 2002 stating therein that the crime of RAPE was committed
against her person sometime in December, 2001 and on 19 March 2002
when she was merely thirteen (13) years of age by herein Respondent
ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, then thirty eight (38) years old, married to
Teresita B. Samson.
 However a RESOLUTION was issued dated 10 June 2002 dismissing the
charge of RAPE and finding the existence of probable cause for the crime
of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION and issued the corresponding
INFORMATION for QUALIFIED SEDUCTION on 04 July 2002.
 Complainant filed a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION dated 26
August 2002 which was denied in the RESOLUTION
 The petitioner elevated the case to the SC
 Respondent alleged in his Answer that:
 Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint to the
effect that Maria Victoria Ventura filed a complaint against him for Rape at
the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office with qualification that the said complaint
for Rape was dismissed. Respondent, however, has no knowledge or
information as to the truth of the allegation that she was 13 years
 Respondent denies that his act constitute grossly immoral conduct and that
the truth is that the sex was done with mutual agreement with the
complainant.
 Respondent respectfully submits that his act of having sex with
complainant once does not constitute… grossly immoral conduct
 That the complaint is instigated by Corazon Ventura who was an employee
at the Law Office of respondent herein. The said Corazon Ventura
WON Affidavit of WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Violation of his
Desistance during the Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross oath of office, and
pendency of this case will Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, Violation of Canon
have an effect in the and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, 1, Rule 1.01 and
Disbarment of Atty. Samson Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Canon 7, Rule 7.03
Responsibility of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility
The possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement
to warrant admission to the bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. It is the
bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the
highest degree of morality in order to safeguard
the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant
behavior on the part of a lawyer may be it in the
lawyer’s public or private activities, which tends
to show said lawyer deficient in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the
evidence and the admissions of respondent
himself, we find that respondent’s act of engaging
in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his
former employee, constitutes gross immoral
conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not
only admitted he had sexual intercourse with
complainant but also showed no remorse
whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing
wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even
gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal
knowledge of a woman other than his wife
manifests his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act
by enticing a very young woman with money
showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard
for the dignity of the human person and the ethics
 entertained hatred and had a grudge against the herein respondent who
terminated her services due to misunderstanding
 He alleged therein that complainant usually stayed late at night with her
male friends when her mother was out of the house. He claimed that he
heard rumors that complainant had sexual affairs with different boys
 Then, on December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother appeared before
the public prosecutor and executed their respective Affidavits of
Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened between respondent
and her in March 2002 was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she was
withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as
well as the one she filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
Accordingly, the criminal case against respondent was dismissed.
 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent be
suspended for a period of one year from the practice of law for immorality
with the warning that repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more
severe penalty.
 Complainant now moves to reconsider the IBP Resolution. She argues that
the penalty imposed by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity and
depravity of the offense. She contends that respondent committed grossly
immoral conduct by forcing himself to have sexual intercourse with a
young and innocent lass of 13 years of age. He also took advantage of his
moral ascendancy over complainant considering that she was then staying
at respondent’s residence. Moreover, there was a betrayal of the marital
vow of fidelity considering that respondent was a married man.
 Meanwhile, respondent also filed a Motion for Reconsideration13 of the
IBP Resolution. He asserts that complainant has not presented any proof of
her minority. Likewise, during the sexual encounter, complainant was not
under their custody. He contends that complainant’s mother even testified
that her daughter stayed at respondent’s house only until February 2002. He
further stresses that because of his admission and remorse, and since this is
the first time he has been found administratively liable, he is entitled to a
reduction of the penalty to one year suspension from the practice of law
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANGBAYAN
[ GR No. 159486-88, Nov. 25, 2003 ]
of his profession. Respondent has violated the trust
and confidence reposed on him by complainant,
then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was
under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual
encounter between the respondent and
complainant was or was not with the latter’s
consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly
committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and
highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required
of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
The 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 fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of
Desistance during the pendency of this case is of
no moment. Complainant’s Affidavit of
Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings in view of the public service
character of the practice of law and the nature of
disbarment proceedings as a public interest
concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui
generis and not meant to grant relief to a
complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to
cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public
and the courts. A disbarment case is not an
investigation into the acts of respondent but on his
conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar.
Facts
 Atty. Allan Paguia, speaking for
Joseph Estrada asserts that the
inhibition of the members of the
Supreme Court from hearing the
petition is called for under Rule
5.10 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
 This prohibits justices from
participating in any partisan
political activity which prescription
was violated by Chief Justice
Hilario Davide when he attended
the EDSA 2 rally and authorized
the assumption of Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo to the
presidency in violation of the
1987 Constitution.
 Petitioners contends justices
have thereby prejudged a case
that assails the legality of the act
taken by President Arroyo.
Issue/s
WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is
hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law, effectiveupon his receipt
hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer
and an officer of the Court.
 Criticism or comment made in
good faith of a decision of the
Court would be welcome for such
reaction can enlighten the court
and contribute to the correction of
an error if committed. However,
Attorney Paguia has repeated his
assault on the Court in both
broadcast and print media.
 The act of the Chief Justice was
not a partisan political activity.
The taking of an oath of office by
and incoming President of the
Republic is a traditional official
function of the honest magistrate.
 Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
mandates that the lawyer should
observe andmaintain the respect
due to the courts and judicial
officers and, indeed, should insist
on similar conduct byothers.
 The Court has already warned
Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to become
mindful of hisgrave
responsibilities as a lawyer and
as an officer of the Court.
Apparently, he has chosen not to
at alltake heed.
Relevant Provisions, Dissents, if any.
 “Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to
entertain personal views on
political questions. But to avoid
suspicion of political partisanship,
a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party
funds, publicly endorse
candidates for political office or
participate in other partisan
politicalactivities.”
 “Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
prohibits a member of the bar
from making such public
statements on any pending case
tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party. By his
acts, Attorney Paguia may have
stoked the fires of public
dissension and posed a
potentially dangerous threat to
the administration of justice.”
G.R. No. 1203 May 15, 1903
In the matter of the suspension of HOWARD D. TERRELL from the practice of law.
Facts Issue/s
Howard D. Terrell, an attorney-at-law, was
ordered to show cause in the Court of
First Instance, in the city of Manila, on the
5th day of February, 1903, why he should
not be suspended as a member of the bar
of the city of Manila for the reasons:
First, that he had assisted in the
organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes"
Club, after he had been notified that the
said organization was made for the
purpose of evading the law then in force
in said city;
Secondly, for acting as attorney for said
"Centro Bellas Artes" during the time of
and after its organization, which
organization was known to him to be
created for the purpose of evading the
law.
Rule 1.02 - No Counselling to Defy Law
WILLEM KUPERS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOHNSON B. HONTANOSAS, Respondent.
WON H.D. TERRELL need to be
suspended for his misconduct as a
lawyer.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
the court below found, and decided as a Rule 1.02 – a lawyer shall not counsel or
fact, that the charges aforesaid made abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
against Howard D. Terrell were true, and or at lessening confidence in the legal
thereupon made an order suspending him system
from his office as a lawyer in the
Philippine Islands, and directed the clerk
of the court to transmit to this court a
certified copy of the order of suspension,
as well as a full statement of the facts
upon which the same was based.
The Supreme Court carefully considered
these facts, and have reached the
conclusion that they were such as to
justify the court below in arriving at the
conclusion that the knowledge and acts of
the accused in connection with the
organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes"
Club were of such a nature and character
as to warrant his suspension from
practice.
The promoting of organizations, with
knowledge of their objects, for the
purpose of violating or evading the laws
against crime constitutes such misconduct
on the part of an attorney, an officer of the
court, as amounts to malpractice or gross
misconduct in his office, and for which he
may be removed or suspended. (Code of
Civil Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting of
a client in a scheme which the attorney
knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at
a violation of law, are acts which justify
disbarment.
It is therefore directed that the said
Howard D. Terrell be suspended from the
practice of law for a term of one year from
February 7, 1903.
Title of the Case A.C. No. 5704 May 8, 2009 – A.C. No. 5704
Facts
PROCEDURAL: Willem Kupers
(complainant) filed an administrative case
against Atty. Hontanoasas (respondent)
Respondent alleges that respondent had
prepared and notarized contracts that are
both invalid and illegal for being violative
of the limitations on aliens leasing private
lands in the Philippines. The respondent
was found guilty.
SUBSTANTIVE:
Complainant’s Accusations
 Respondent prepared and
notarized contracts that are both
invalid and illegal as these
contracts violated the limitations
on aliens leasing private lands;
 Respondent refused to furnish
copies of the contracts he
notarized to the parties thereof;
 Respondent notarized
documents without keeping
copies thereof and
 Complainant claimed that as
counsel for Hans and Vivian
Busse, respondent had prepared
a memorandum of agreement
and a contract of lease between
the spouses Busse and
Hochstrasser, a Swiss national.
Under said agreement,
Hochstrasser would lease Vivian
Busse’s property in Alcoy, Cebu
for fifty (50) years, renewable for
another fifty (50) years.5
 Respondent prepared a similar
agreement and lease contract
between the spouses Busse and
Karl Emberger, a Swiss national,
over another parcel of land in
Alcoy, Cebu. This time the lease
contract was for a period of forty-
nine (49) years renewable for
another forty nine (49) years. All
four (4) documents were
notarized by respondent.
Issue/s
1. Whether Atty. Hontanosas violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility by
notarizing leases of 49 years and 50
years to foreigners
2. Whether Atty. Hontanosas violated
the rule “No counseling to defy Law”
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
1. Yes. In preparing and notarizing the
illegal lease contracts, respondent
violated the Attorney’s Oath and several
canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
2. Yes. Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states:
"A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at decreasing confidence in the legal
systems."
3. Respondent Atty. Johnson B.
Hontanosas, is found GUILTY of
violating the lawyer’s oath and gross
misconduct.
3. Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas,
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months with a WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
1. Respondent, by drafting the questioned
lease agreements, caused his clients to
violate Section 7 of R.A. No. 7652 which
states:
Sec. 7. Penal Provision. — Any contract
or agreement made or executed in
violation of any of the following prohibited
acts shall be null and void ab initio and
both contracting parties shall be punished
by a fine of not less than One Hundred
thousand pesos (₱100,000) nor more
than One million pesos (₱1,000,000), or
imprisonment of six (6) months to (6)
years, or both, at the discretion of the
court:
(1) Any provision in the lease
agreement stipulating a lease
period in excess of that provided
in paragraph (1) of Section 4;
(2) Use of the leased premises
for the purpose contrary to
existing laws of the land, public
 Respondent drafted two deeds of
sale over the leased properties
of Spouses Busse to Naomie
Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl
Novak, a German National.
order, public policy, morals, or
good customs;
(3) Any agreement or
agreements resulting is the lease
of land in excess of the area
approved by the DTI: Provided,
That, where the excess of the
totality of the area leased is due
to the acts of the lessee, the
lessee shall be held solely liable
therefor: Provided, further, That,
in the case of corporations,
associations, or partnerships, the
president, manager, director,
trustee, or officers responsible
for the violation hereof shall bear
the criminal liability. (Emphasis
ours)

2. Respondent violated the Attorney’s

Oath and several canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. One of the
foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-
law is to "obey the laws of the
Philippines."

The other canons of professional

responsibility which respondent
transgressed are the following:
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL
OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07- A lawyer shall impress upon
his client compliance with the laws and
the principles of hairness.
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES
FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
REPOSED IN HIM.
Aside from constituting violation of the
lawyer’s oath, the acts of respondents
also amount to gross misconduct under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, which provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of

attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor. ― A member of the bar may be
 disbarred 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 willful disobedience
appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do
Respondent’s Defense

Respondent avers that the assailed

contracts are valid under Republic Act No.
7652 (R.A. No. 7652), entitled "An Act
Allowing The Long-Term Lease of Private
Lands by Foreign Investors."

 Respondent adds that these contracts

should not be viewed purely as lease
contracts since they allow the leasor to
nominate a Filipino citizen or
corporation to purchase the subject
property within the lease period.

EVIDENTIAL:

 Commissioner Doroteo Aguila required

the parties to file their respective
memoranda due to the limited period is
given by the Court. The parties did. The
Commissioner found that respondent
had prepared and notarized contracts
that violated Presidential Decree No.
471 (P.D. No. 471) since leases of
private lands by aliens cannot exceed
twenty five (25) years, renewable for
another twenty five (25) years.

Rule 1.04 – Encourage Client to Avoid

Controversy

Castaneda V. Ago

G.R. No. L-28546 / July 30, 1975 / J.

Castro

Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions / Dissents, if any

Disclaimer: Nahilo ako sa case na ‘to lol. WON Atty. Jose M. Luison violated Rule YES. Due to the attorney’s actuations, i.e.
Ang daming procedurial / remedial 1.04 of the Code of Professional resisting execution of the judgment thru
actuations / counter-chenaloo. Ginawa ko, Responsibility i.e. “Encourage client to manifold tactics in and from one court to
I focused on the remedial history (kasi ito avoid controversy.” another (in SC 5 times petitioned), which
ang dahilan kung bakit natalo ung all in all lasted for 14 years, the rightful
respondent sa case) and sa ruling owner have long been denied the fruits of
(maraming aspects ang in-address ng their victory in the replevin suit.
SC), nag-focus lang ako sa pag-address
sa ginawang exhaustion ni attorney sa
legal remedies para lang ma-stop ung writ
The respondents, thru their attorney,
of possession for the petitioners, when in
misused legal remedies and prostituted
truth and in fact, kina petitioner na talaga
the judicial process to thwart the
dapat ung levy. Had to make this
satisfaction of the judgment, to the
explanation baka mailto kayo. Ako kasi
prejudice of the petitioners.
mismo nalito. Texts in italics are my
opinion, not SC’s. Hehehe

The SC condemns the attitude of the

respondents and attorney who far from
viewing the courts as sanctuaries for
FACTS: those who seek justice, have tried to
subvert the very ends of justice.

Events chronologically arranged:

As a lawyer, Atty. Luison has allowed
himself to become an instigator of
controversy instead of encouraging the
PRE-AUCTION clients to avoid controversy.

- 1955: petitioners filed a replevin --------------------------------------------------------

suit against Pastor Ago in the CFI of --
Manila to recover their machineries.

- 1957: judgment was made in favor

of the plaintiffs, ordering ago to return the In case itanong, on the actual issue, the
machineries or pay money. CA’s decision to issue prelim. Injunction
was set aside and the case before the
- Ago appealed before CA. Both CA CFI-Rizal (I think they meant QC) has
and SC affirmed the judgment of CFI. been dismissed. The main reason being
- The case was remanded to CFI
where the latter issued a writ of execution
for P172,923.87.00
- Ago moved for a stay of execution
but his motion was denied and levy was
attached on Ago’s house and lots in QA.
- The Sheriff then advertised the
house and lots for auction for sale.
- Ago moved to stop the auction
sale. The motion was denied, so he filed a
petition for certiorari before CA.
Lourdes Ago, the wife, is also bound by
the replevin against her husband for which
their conjugal properties would be
answerable (coz ‘diba ni-raise na reason
ni Ago is hindi pwedeng i-extend ung
attachment ng levy sa share ni wife sa
bahay kasi kanya un and ung issue is
personal obligation ni respondent
husband, not his wife’s. Sabi ng SC,
absurd daw un, kasi which part of the
house would be vacated by respondent,
and which part would Lourdes continue to
stay in? So the wife is also affected. hehe.

- CA dismissed the petition.

- On appeal, SC affirmed the

decision of CA.

- Ago then attempted to obtain a writ

of prelim. Injunction to prevent the Sheriff
from enforcing the writ of execution,
primarily because he wanted to save his
family’s house and lots. He attempted
THRICE.

- All motions were denied.

- Sheriff sold the house and lots

through an action where the petitioners
won as the highest bidders.

- Finally, Sheriff executed a final

deed of sale. The CFI of Manila then
executed a writ of possession.

POST-AUCTION

- Unsatisfied (and probably being

persistent for all the wrong reasons), Ago
filed a complaint w/. CFI [THIS TIME OF
QC] to annul the sheriff’s sale, saying that
the obligation of Ago upon which the
judgment was rendered against him was
his personal obligation and not his wife’s
who has ½ share of the conjugal house,
therefore the levy couldn’t not be attached
extensively to the wife’s property.
TRO

- CFI then issued a writ of prelim.

injunction to prevent the petitioners,
Register of Deeds, and the sheriff of QC
from registering the deed of sale, and
basically awarding the house and lot with
finality to the petitioners.

- So basically, what the Manila CFI

ordered (bigay niyo kay petitioners ang
bahay at lupa) was countermanded by
Manila QC (itigil ang pag-register kay
petitioner).

(KAKAQIQIL NA PART)

- CFI-QC lifted the prelim injunction

and issued new titles to petitioners.

- But the writ of possession was

prevented from being enforced since CFI-
QC issued another TRO,

- A TRO which it then lifted…

- …but restored…

- …and with finality, lifted again.

While the battle re: lifting and restoring

of TRO was being fought in CFI-QC,
pumunta sina Agos sa SC to file a
petition for certiorari and prohibition.

- In the petition, they prayed for a

writ of prelim. injunction to stop the sheriff
from enforcing the writ of possession.

- SC dismissed petition.

- Motion to reconsider denied.

- Respondent then filed with CA a

similar petition.

- CA dismissed.

- Respondents appealed to SC. SC

dismissed.

- Respondents filed another petition

before CA (same prelim. injunction
petition)

- THIS TIME, CA granted the prelim

injunction. (huhuhu)

- The petitioners (Castaneda and

Henson) filed a motion to reconsider but
failed to obtain such. (huhuhux3)

Hence the present case with SC.

Rule 2.01 - Not to Reject or Oppressed Defenceless or Oppressed Services

Ledesma v. Climaco [GR No. L-23815, 28 Jun 1974; 57 SCRA 473] – Fernando, J.

Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions

Dissents, if any.
Petitioner Adelino Ledesma was appointed
Election Registrar for the Municipality of
Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental. As
he was counsel de parte (an attorney
retained by a party litigant, usually for a
fee, to prosecute or defend his cause in
court), he filed a motion to withdraw as
such but was denied by the court and
appointed him as counsel de officio (an
attorney appointed by the court to an
indigent criminal defendant) for the two
defendants. He filed an urgent motion to
withdraw as counsel de officio due to the
policy of COMELEC for full time service
and the volume/pressure of work.
Rule 2.03 - No Solicitation
Ulep v. Legal Clinic [BM No. 553, 17
June 1993; 223 SCRA 378] – Regalado,
J.
Facts
In 1984, The Legal Clinic (consist of mostly
paralegals) was formed by Atty. Rogelio
Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was
to move toward specialization and to cater
to clients who cannot afford the services of
big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed
a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latter’s advertisements
which was presumed to be illegal since it
promotes extramarital affairs and specialty
specifically divorce of marriage. It is also
alleged that The Legal Clinic published an
article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein
Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic
is composed of specialists that can take
care of a client’s problem no matter how
WON petitioner can withdraw his
appointment of being counsel de officio
due to him being appointed as Election
Registrar
Issue/s
1. WON the Legal Clinic is engaged in
the practice of law; whether such is
allowed considering they are mostly
paralegals
2. WON its advertisement may be
allowed
NO, since in criminal cases, there can be
no fair hearing unless the accused be
given an opportunity to be heard by
counsel. The right to be heard would be of
little avail if it does not include the right to
be heard by counsel because w/o such, he
may be convicted not because he is guilty
but because he does not know how to
establish his innocence. It is essential that
the court should assign one counsel de
officio for him if he so desires and he is
poor, or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own. At present
and the immediate future, there is not likely
an exorbitant demand on his time w/
regards to being an Election Registrar.
Duty to court and to client takes
precedence over the promptings of self-
interest.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
1. Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged
in the practice of law however,
such practice is not allowed. The
Legal Clinic is composed mainly
of paralegals. The services it
offered include various legal
problems wherein a client may
avail of legal services from
simple documentation to
complex litigation and corporate
undertakings. Most of these
services are undoubtedly beyond
the domain of paralegals, but
rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice
of law. Under Philippine
jurisdiction however, the services
complicated it is even if it is as complicated being offered by Legal Clinic
as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion which constitute practice of law
situation. He said that he and his staff of cannot be performed by
lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” paralegals. Only a person duly
in various fields, can take care of it. The admitted as a member of the bar
Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and who is in good and regular
and criminal law, medico-legal problems, standing, is entitled to practice
labor, litigation and family law. These law.
specialists are backed up by a battery of 2. Anent the issue on the validity of
paralegals, counselors and attorneys. the questioned advertisements,
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it the Code of Professional
should be allowed in view of the Responsibility provides that a
jurisprudence in the US which now allows lawyer in making known his legal
it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). services shall use only true,
And that besides, the advertisement is honest, fair, dignified and
merely making known to the public the objective information or
services that The Legal Clinic offers. statement of facts. The
standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. 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. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic
seem to promote divorce, secret
marriage, bigamous marriage,
and other circumventions of law
which their experts can facilitate.
Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which
forms of advertisement are allowed. 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. The
Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of
advertisement:
• Advertisement in a reputable law list

Rule 2.03-No Solicitation (Rule 138 Sec 27,Rules of Court)
Linsangan v. Tolentino [ A.C. No. 6672 (2009)] – Corona,J
Facts
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by
Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.
Complainant 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.(Supported by a
sworn affidavit of complainant's client).
Complainant also attached respondents'
calling card, questioning its propriety.
----
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME
SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel:
362-7820
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632)
362-7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926)
2701719
Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
Issue/s
1. WON Atty. Tolentino is guilty of
solicitating of clients and encroachment of
professional services.
• Use of ordinary simple professional
card
Listing in a phone directory but without
designation as to his specialization
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
Complainant presented substantial RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO
evidence (consisting of the sworn OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT
statements of the very same persons DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT
coaxed by Labiano and referred to LEGAL BUSINESS.
respondents office) to prove that RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT,
respondent indeed solicited legal FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
business as well as profited from referrals INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR
suits. PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS
Although respondent initially denied CAUSE.
knowing Labiano in his answer, he later
admitted it during the mandatory hearing.
Through Labianos actions, respondents
law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of
Labianos 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.
With regard to respondents violation of
Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule
that a lawyer should not steal another
lawyers client nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service,
good result or reduced fees for his
services.
Respondent committed an unethical,
predatory overstep into anothers legal
practice. He cannot escape liability under
Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING
KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL
USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO
ABROAD. OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT
---- DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT
LEGAL BUSINESS.
Respondent's-contention RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT,
1. Atty. Tolentino denied knowing FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
Labiano. (Which he later then admitted) INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR
2. He also denied authorizing the printing PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS
of such calling cards. CAUSE.

Rule 2.03 No Solicitation

MIGUEL G. VILLATUYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS, Respondent.
Title of the Case GR NO. XXXX (Year) – A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012

Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions

Dissents, if any.
PROCEDURAL: complainant Manuel G.
Villatuya (complainant) charges Atty. Bede
S. Tabalingcos (respondent) with unlawful
solicitation of cases, violation of the Code
or Professional Responsibility for
nonpayment of fees to complainant, and
gross immorality for marrying two other
women while respondent’s first marriage
was subsisting.
SUBSTANTIVE:
Complainant’s Accusations
 On February 2002, he was employed
by respondent as a financial consultant
to assist the latter on technical and
financial matters in the latter’s
numerous petitions for corporate
rehabilitation filed with different courts.
Complainant claimed that they had a
verbal agreement whereby he would be
entitled to ₱ 50,000 for every Stay
Order issued by the court in the cases
they would handle, in addition to ten
percent (10%) of the fees paid by their
clients.
 That, from February to December 2002,
respondent was able to rake in millions
of pesos from the corporate
rehabilitation cases they were working
on together. Complainant also claimed
that he was entitled to the amount of
₱ 900,000 for the 18 Stay Orders
issued by the courts as a result of
his work with respondent, and a total
of ₱ 4,539,000 from the fees paid by
their clients.9 Complainant appended
to his Complaint several annexes
supporting the computation of the fees
he believes are due him
 That respondent engaged in unlawful
solicitation of cases in violation of
Section 27 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Allegedly
respondent set up two financial
consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc. and Christmel
1. Whether respondent violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility by
nonpayment of fees to complainant
2. Whether respondent violated the rule
against unlawful solicitation, and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross
immoral conduct for having married
thrice.6
1. The charge of dishonesty is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
2. Respondent is REPRIMANDED for
acts of illegal advertisement and
solicitation.
3. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is
DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a
grossly immoral conduct.
RATIO:
1. Dishonesty for nonpayment of share in
the fees
SC affirm the IBP’s dismissal of the
first charge against respondent, BUT
do not concur with the rationale
behind it.
Based on the allegations, respondent had
agreed to share with complainant the
legal fees paid by clients that complainant
solicited for the respondent. Complainant,
however, failed to proffer convincing
evidence to prove the existence of that
agreement.
2. Unlawful Solicitation of Client
Considering, that complainant has not
proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, SC affirm the
recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08
of the Code
A review of the records reveals that
respondent indeed used the business
entities mentioned in the report to solicit
clients and to advertise his legal services,
purporting to be specialized in corporate
rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of
the case, he violated Rule 2.0347 of the
Code, which prohibits lawyers from
soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging
in business or other lawful occupation.
Impropriety arises, though, when the
business is of such a nature or is
conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a
member of the bar. This inconsistency
arises when the business is one that can
readily lend itself to the procurement of
 Business Link, Inc., and used them as
fronts to advertise his legal services
and solicit cases. Complainant
supported his allegations by attaching
to his Position Paper the Articles of
Incorporation of Jesi and Jane,10 letter-
proposals to clients signed by
respondent on various dates11 and
proofs of payment made to the latter by
their clients.12
 That, on the third charge of gross
immorality, complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts
of bigamy for having married two
other women while his first marriage
was subsisting. He submitted a
Certification dated 13 July 2005 issued
by the Office of the Civil Registrar
General-National Statistics Office
(NSO) certifying that Bede S.
Tabalingcos, herein respondent,
contracted marriage thrice: first, on 15
July 1980 with Pilar M. Lozano, which
took place in Dasmarinas, Cavite; the
second time on 28 September 1987
with Ma. Rowena Garcia Piñon in the
City of Manila; and the third on 07
September 1989 with Mary Jane
Elgincolin Paraiso in Ermita, Manila.13
professional employment for the lawyer;
or that can be used as a cloak for indirect
solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer,
would be regarded as the practice of
law.48
Rule 15.0850 of the Code mandates that
the lawyer is mandated to inform the
client whether the former is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is
a must in those occupations related to the
practice of law. The reason is that certain
ethical considerations governing the
attorney-client relationship may be
operative in one and not in the other.51 In
this case, it is confusing for the client if it
is not clear whether respondent is offering
consultancy or legal services.
3. Bigamy
SC found him guilty of gross
immorality under the Code.
For purposes of disbarment proceeding,
these Marriage Contracts bearing the
name of respondent are competent and
convincing evidence proving that he
committed bigamy, which renders him
unfit to continue as a member of the bar.
The documents were certified by the
NSO, which is the official repository of
civil registry records pertaining to the
birth, marriage and death of a person.
Having been issued by a government
agency, the NSO certification is accorded
much evidentiary weight and carries with
it a presumption of regularity. In this case,
respondent has not presented any
competent evidence to rebut those
documents.
Respondent’s Defense
Furthermore, no distinction has been
Respondent denied the charges against
made as to whether the misconduct
him.
was committed in the lawyer’s
 That complainant was not an professional capacity or in his private
employee of his law firm – life. This is because a lawyer may not
Tabalingcos and Associates Law divide his personality so as to be an
Office14 – but of Jesi and Jane attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
Management, Inc., where the former is another. He is expected to be competent,
a major stockholder. honorable and reliable at all times since he
who cannot apply and abide by the laws in
his private affairs, can hardly be expected
 That complainant was unprofessional
to do so in his professional dealings nor
and incompetent in performing his
lead others in doing so. Professional
job as a financial consultant,
honesty and honor are not to be expected
resulting in the latter’s dismissal of
as the accompaniment of dishonesty and
many rehabilitation plans they
dishonor in other relations. The
presented in their court cases.
administration of justice, in which the
lawyer plays an important role being an
officer of the court, demands a high degree
 That there was no verbal agreement
of intellectual and moral competency on
between them regarding the payment his part so that the courts and clients may
of fees and the sharing of rightly repose confidence in him.
professional fees paid by his clients.
He proffered documents showing that Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack
the salary of complainant had been of that degree of morality required of
paid.17 him as a member of the bar. He made a
mockery of marriage, a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts
 As to the charge of unlawful solicitation- of committing bigamy twice constituted
That, his law firm had an agreement grossly immoral conduct and are grounds
with Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
whereby the firm would handle the legal of the Revised Rules of Court.58
aspect of the corporate rehabilitation
case; and that the latter would attend to
the financial aspect of the case’ such as
the preparation of the rehabilitation
plans to be presented in court. To
support this contention, respondent
attached to his Position Paper a Joint
Venture Agreement dated 10 December
2005 entered into by Tabalingcos and
Associates Law Offices and Jesi and
Jane Management, Inc.;18 and an
Affidavit executed by Leoncio Balena,
Vice-President for Operations of the
said company.

 On the charge of gross immorality,-

respondent assailed the Affidavit
submitted by William Genesis, a
dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., as having no
probative value, since it had been
retracted by the affiant
himself.20 Respondent did not
specifically address the allegations
regarding his alleged bigamous
marriages with two other women.
EVIDENTIAL:
 Complainant filed a Motion to Admit
Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts.21 To the
said Motion, he attached the certified
true copies of the Marriage Contracts
referred to in the Certification issued by
the NSO.22 The appended Marriage
Contracts matched the dates, places
and names of the contracting parties
indicated in the earlier submitted NSO
Certification of the three marriages
entered into by respondent. The first
marriage contract submitted was a
marriage that took place between
respondent and Pilar M. Lozano in
Dasmarinas, Cavite, on 15 July
1980.23 The second marriage contract
was between respondent and Ma.
Rowena G. Piñon, and it took place at
the Metropolitan Trial Court Compound
of Manila on 28 September 1987.24 The
third Marriage Contract referred to a
marriage between respondent and Mary
Jane E. Paraiso, and it took place on 7
September 1989 in Ermita, Manila. In
the second and third Marriage
Contracts, respondent was described
as single under the entry for civil
status.

 Respondent further informed the

Commission that he had filed a Petition
to Declare Null and Void the Marriage
Contract with Rowena Piñon at the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Biñan,
Laguna, where it was docketed as Civil
Case No. B-3270.27 He also filed
another Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage Contract with Pilar
Lozano at the RTC-Calamba, where it
was docketed as Civil Case No. B-
3271.28 In both petitions, he claimed that
he had recently discovered that there
were Marriage Contracts in the records
of the NSO bearing his name and
allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon
and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.
He prayed for their annulment, because
they were purportedly null and void.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
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.
Khan vs. Simbillo [A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003] – Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Facts
- Respondent Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo
advertised himself in some leading
newspapers as an “Annulment of Marriage
Specialist.”
- Petitioner Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. filed
an administrative complaint against Atty.
Simbillo for improper advertising and
solicitation of his legal services.
- Respondent Simbillo admitted the acts
imputed to him, but argued that advertising
and solicitation per se are not prohibited
acts; that the time has come to change our
views about prohibition on advertising and
solicitation; that the interest of the public is
not served by the absolute prohibition on
lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift
the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the
rationale behind the decades–old
prohibition should be abandoned.
Issue/s
- WON Respondent Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo is guilty of violating Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court.
Ruling
- Yes. Respondent Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo was found guilty for violating Rules
2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court.
- He was suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year and was sternly
warned that repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
- 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.
Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
- Rules 2.03 and 3.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility:
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.
- Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court:
Section 27 – Disbarment or suspension
of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefore. – A member of the bar
may be disbarred 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
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
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.
IN RE PETITION OF SYCIP [92 SCRA 1, JULY 30, 1979] – PONENTE: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
Facts
Consolidated petitions were filed before
this Court 1) by the surviving partners of
Atty. Alexander Sycip(desceased), and 2)
by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio
Ozaeta(deceased), praying that they be
allowed to continue using, in the names of
their firms, the names of partners who had
passed away.
Petitioners base their petitions on the
following arguments:
1. Art 1840 of the Civil Code
The use by the person or
partnership continuing
the business of the
partnership name, or the
name of a deceased
partner as part
thereof, shall not of itself
make the individual
property of the
deceased partner liable
for any debts contracted
by such person or
partnership. 1
2. In regulating other professions,
such as accountancy and
engineering, the legislature has
authorized the adoption of firm
names without any restriction
as to the use, in such firm name,
of the name of a deceased
partner
3. Canon 33 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics adopted by
the American Bar Association
declares that:
... The continued use of
the name of a deceased
or former partner when
permissible by local
custom, is not unethical
Issue/s
ISSUE: WON the surviving partners may
be allowed by the court to retain the name
of the partners who already passed away
in the name of the firm?
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
RULING: NO.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
 Article 1815 of the Civil Code ART 1840 OF THE CIVIL CODE
that names in a firm name of a Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional
partnership must either be those Ethics
of living partners and. in the case ARTICLE 1815 OF THE CIVIL CODE
DISSENTING OPINION (AQUINO, J.,)
of non-partners, should be living
persons who can be subjected to
liability. Petition may be granted with the condition
 Art. 1815. Every that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
partnership shall two firms (as the case may be) that
operate under a firm Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta
name, which may or and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the
may not include the period when they served as partners
name of one or more of
should be stated therein.
the partners.
 Those who, not being
members of the Purpose: Retain the clients who had
partnership, include customarily sought the legal services of
their names in the firm Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit
name, shall be subject to from the goodwill attached to the names of
the liability, of a partner. those respected and esteemed law
practitioners.
 Article 1840 of the Civil Code
within Chapter 3 of Title IX of the
Code entitled "Dissolution and
Winding Up." The Article
primarily deals with the exemption
from liability in cases of a
dissolved partnership, of the
individual property of the
deceased partner for debts
contracted by the person or
partnership which continues
the business using the
partnership name or the name of
the deceased partner as part
thereof. What the law
contemplates therein is a hold-
over situation preparatory to
formal reorganization.
 A partnership for the practice of
law cannot be likened to
partnerships formed by other
professionals or for business. For
one thing, the law on accountancy
 but care should be taken
that no imposition or
deception is practiced
through this use. ... 4
4. There is no possibility of
imposition or deception
because the deaths of their
respective deceased partners
were well-publicized in all
newspapers of general
circulation for several days
5. No local custom prohibits the
continued use of a deceased
partner's name in a professional
firm's name;
6. The continued use of a deceased
partner's name in the firm name of
law partnerships has been
consistently allowed by U.S.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that
the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Dacanay vs. Baker and McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985] – Ponente: Aquino, J.
Facts
-Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one
Rosie Clurman, represented by Atty.
Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to
release some shares to Torres’ client
-The letterhead contained the name “Baker
& McKenzie”. Dacanay denied Clurman’s
liability and at the same time he asked why
is Torres using the letterhead “Baker &
McKenzie”, a foreign partnership
established in Chicago, Illinois.
Issue/s
- WON respondents (10 lawyers) can make
use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
specifically allows the use of a
trade name in connection with the
practice of accountancy. A
partnership for the practice of
law is not a legal entity. It is a
mere relationship or
association for a particular
purpose
 Canon 33 does not consider as
unethical the continued use of
the name of a deceased or former
partner in the firm name of a law
partnership when such a practice
is permissible by local custom but
the Canon warns that care should
be taken that no imposition or
deception is practiced through
this use.
 It must be conceded that in the
Philippines, no local
custom permits or allows the
continued use of a deceased or
former partner's name in the firm
names of law partnerships.
Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
- No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien - Rules 3.02, Code of Professional
law firm, cannot practice law in the Responsibility:
Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm
name is unethical therefore Torres and his Rule 3.04 – In the choice of a firm name,
law firm are enjoined from using “Baker & no false, misleading or assumed name
McKenzie” in their practice of law. shall be used. The continued use of the
name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is
deceased.
-No reply was received so Dacanay filed an
administrative complaint enjoining Torres
from using “Baker & McKenzie”.
-Later, Torres said that he is an associate
of the law firm Guerrero & Torres; that their
law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie;
that the said foreign firm has members in
30 cities all over the world; that they
associated with them in order to make a
representation that they can render legal
services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and
others engaged in foreign trade and
investment.

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law currently.

SAMONTE VS. GATDULA, February 26, 1999

Facts Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions

The complainant, Julieta Borromeo
Samonte charged Rolando R. Gatdula with
grave misconduct consisting in the alleged
engaging in the private practice of law
which is in conflict with his official functions
as Branch Clerk of Court. The complainant
represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil
case for ejectment. Contrary to their
expectation that execution will proceed,
they instead received a temporary
restraining order. Santos contends that the
order was hasty and irregular as she was
never notified of the application for
preliminary injunction. Gatdula, when
asked by the complainant of the reason of
the decision, blamed Santos‘s lawyer for
writing the address in the complaint for
ejectment and told her that if she wanted
the execution to proceed, she should
change her lawyer and retain the law office
of respondent, at the same time giving his
calling card with the name ―Baligod,
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.
The decision of the Court continued not to
be favorable to Samonte, which cause her
Dissents, if any.
WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction.
Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in
the professional card constitutes an act of Section 7 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct
solicitation which violates Section 7, sub- and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
par. (b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Employees) - Engage in the private
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials practice of their profession unless
and Employees) which declares it unlawful authorized by the Constitution or law,
for a public official or employees to, among provided, that such practice will not conflict
others: (2) Engage in the private practice of or tend to conflict with their official
their profession unless authorized by the functions
Constituion or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with official
functions.‖
WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded
for engaging in the private practice of law.
He is further ordered to cause the
exclusion of his name in the firm name of
any office engaged in the private practice
of law
to file administrative complaint against
Gatdula.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT
OF
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
Cruz vs. Salva [G.R. No. L-12871 July 25, 1959] – Ponente: Montemayor, J.
Facts
-A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered.
CFI Pasay found Castelo, De Jesus,
Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo, et al. guilty
of murder. They all appealed and Castelo
sought a new trial. Castelo was then
again found guilty.
-President Magsaysay ordered a
reinvestigation. The Philippine
Constabulary questioned people and got
confessions pointing to persons other
than those convicted.
-Castelo, et al. wrote to Fiscal Salva to
conduct a reinvestigation on the basis of
these new confessions. Fiscal Salva
conferred with the Sol. Gen. and the
Justice Secretary decided to have the
results of the investigation made available
to the counsel of the appellants.
-The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary
furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the
affidavits and confessions. Salva
organized a committee for reinvestigation
and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was
implicated as instigator and mastermind in
the new affidavits and confessions.
-The investigation was conducted in the
session hall of the Municipal Court of
Pasay City to accommodate the big crowd
that wanted to witness the proceeding,
including the members of the press.
-Cruz’ counsel questioned the jurisdiction
of the committee and of Salva to conduct
a preliminary investigation of the case
because it was still a pending appeal in
FACTS.
Issue/s Ruling Relevant Provisions
Dissents, if any.
- WON Respondent Salva conducted the - No. The members of the Court were - Rules 3.04, Code of Professional
investigation properly? greatly disturbed and annoyed by such Responsibility:
publicity and sensationalism, all of which
may properly be laid at the door of Rule 3.04 – A lawyer shall not pay or give
respondent Salva. In this, he committed anything of value to representatives of the
what was regard a grievous error and poor mass media in anticipation of, or in return
judgment for which we fail to find any for, publicity to attract legal business.
excuse or satisfactory explanation. His
actuations in this regard went well beyond
the bounds or prudence, discretion and
good taste. It is bad enough to have such
undue publicity when a said publicity and
sensationalism is allowed, even
encouraged, when the case is on appeal
and is pending consideration by the
Tribunal, the whole thing becomes
inexcusable, even abhorrent, and the
Court, in the interest of justice, is
constrained and called upon to put an end
to it and a deterrent against its repetition by
meting an appropriate disciplinary
measure, even a penalty to the one liable.
- Salva is publicly reprehended and
censured for the uncalled for and wide
publicity and sensationalism that he had
given to and allowed in connection with his
investigation, which we consider and find
to be contempt of court.
the Supreme Court. The counsel now filed
this present petition.
-Salva said that he subpoenaed Cruz
because of Cruz’ oral and personal
request to allow him to appear at the
investigation.
-The SC issued a writ of preliminary
injunction stopping the preliminary
investigation.