A.C. No. 3056. August 16, 1991
Imbang
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE C.
RENOMERON, Respondent.
FACTS:
Disbarment against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban
City.
Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc.
(V&G), filed an administrative case against Atty. Renomeron, for the latter’s
irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163
pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its
subdivision.
V&G complied with the desired requirements, however, Renomeron
suspended the registration of the documents pending the compliance of the former
with their “special conditions”, which was that V&G should provide him with
weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money
per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by
V&G or GSIS representatives.
Renomeron formally denied the registration of the documents. He
himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said documents to
Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the
registrability of the documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still refused
the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission
of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also
be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as a public official?
HELD:
The Court ruled that Renomeron may be disciplined by the Court as
public official for his misconduct constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs. De
Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for
money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation
is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action (Legal
Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-67).
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). As the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials requires public officials and
employees to process documents and papers expeditiously and prohibits them
from directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts
or anything of monetary value in the course of any transaction which may be
affected by the functions of their office, the Code of Professional Responsibility
forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
(Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's cause "for
any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of
Professional Responsibility.)
This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable,
and reliable" may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA
293) for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in the practice of
his calling" (Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269, 278).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron
committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high
and noble calling of the law (Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142 SCRA 632; Court
Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269).
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron was disbarred from the practice of
law and his name was stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R.
AC No. 6788; August23, 2007
Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR.
Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Profess ional Responsibility.
1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil andcriminal
actions against the spouses Roque and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8,
500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued areceipt for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to
attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe Jovellanoses. Imbang
never allowed her to enter thecourtroom and always told her to wait outside.
He would thencome out after several hours toinform her that the hearing
hadbeen cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach
“appearance” in court, respondent charged her P350.Ramos was shocked
to learn that Imbang never filed any caseagainst the Jovellanoses and that
he was in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO)
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.
HELD: YES, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to conduct
themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in
government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations
as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but
also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
The SC supported this with three explanations:
1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2)
of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions
of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and
existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any
public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside
employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of profession
unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided that such practice
will notconflict with their official function. In this instance, Imbang
received P5,000 from the complainant andissued a receipt on July 15, 1992
while he was still connected with thePAO. Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-clientrelationship.
2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of
the Revised Administrative Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal
law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent
persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. As
a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees fromthe
complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission.
3. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:o CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is
obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includesthe observance of the
above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated byImbang when he accepted
the complainant's cases and receivedattorney's fees in consideration of his
legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach
ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because
theprohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him
fromacting as Ramos' counsel.
OMAR P. ALI vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG
Facts: It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the
administrative case earlier filed by complainant against respondent. In said case,
which was initially investigated by the Land Registration Authority (LRA),
complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli
Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae Bauduli Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu,
Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola Bauduli Datu; and manipulating the
criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation
of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali Datus are
relatives of respondent.
Issue: did atty. Bubong violate Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Held: yes , he did.
In the case at bar, respondent’s grave misconduct, as established by the
Office of the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his
qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of
Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the rules governing land
registration for the benefit of his relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated
his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain
his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
is explicit on this matter. It reads:
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position
to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties.
Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the people’s confidence in the
public office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal
profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law
calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant’s daughter,
requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the
same as proceedings of this nature cannot be “interrupted or terminated by reason
of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or
failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.” As we have previously
explained in the case ofIrene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos
… A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack
of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil
action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice
from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is
called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administrative of
justice.
Olazo v. Dante Tinga AM No. 10-5-7-SC-12/7/2010
FACTS: This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate
Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo (complainant).
The respondent is charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.
The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02
In the complaint,the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position
as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly
interfered with the complainant’s sales application because of his personal interest
over the subject land.
The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03
The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas
belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged
that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights
over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01
The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct
considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified
beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant averred that Joseph
Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not
qualify for an award.
The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice of law, within the
one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was engaged in the practice of law.
Whether or not respondent is liable under Rules 6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
RULING: In Cayetano v. Monsod,we defined the practice of law as any activity,
in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession;
to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. “THE
COMPLAINANT, TOO, FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH
THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF
LAW. AT FACE VALUE, THE LEGAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE
RESPONDENT WAS LIMITED ONLY IN THE PREPARATION OF A
SINGLE DOCUMENT. IN BORJA, SR. V. SULYAP, INC.,WE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW AS ONE
THAT CONTEMPLATES A SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF THE SAME
NATURE HABITUALLY OR CUSTOMARILY HOLDING ONE’S SELF
TO THE PUBLIC AS A LAWYER.
All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the
complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation
to prove his/her defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the
complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been proven, nothing
has to be rebutted in defense.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative
case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice
Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN PNB VS. ATTY. TELESFORO CEDO

FACTS: In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK)
encountered financial difficulties. GENBANK had
extended considerable financial support to Filcapital Development Corporation
causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current account with Central Bank.
Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. The
Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to
resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public, and
ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where
Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza
filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court
in GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After EDSA Revolution I
Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of
former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG
filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution
against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration
on properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their close
relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned
respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General
Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then
Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which
subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify
invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits
former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employmentin
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between
respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his present employment as
counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
A.C. NO. 3701
Facts: Respondent-lawyer was the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset
Management Group of the complainant bank. While he was still an employee,
he facilitated in arranging the sale of a steel sheet in favor of Milagros Ong Siy
for a certain amount of money and even noted a gate pass authorizing the pull out
of the sheets in a compound. When a civil action was filed by the bank against
Mrs. Ong Siy, the respondent act as the counsel for the defendant after he resigned
from the complainant bank. Similarly when PNB also file an administrative case
against one of its employees, respondent again was the counsel of the erring
employee. This prompted the complainant to file an administrative case against
the respondent lawyer in violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service
The Respondent admitted that he is the counsel for Ong Siy but only with regards
the execution pending appeal but did not participate in the main litigation. He even
alleged that he never appeared in the case of Almeda against the bank. While the
law firm” Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo and Associates” it is only Atty. Ferrer who
handled the case and never been form a partnership with Atty. Ferrer. Each of
them handles their cases separately and independently.
HELD:

ISSUE: Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to The court cited the case of Hilado vs. David
respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.” "Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations,
a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and
well-known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings
HELD between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the
revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. prejudice the complainant's cause."
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he
acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his former
Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their
“congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for
representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the other side in the forcible entry case. In the case ofHilado vs. David, supra, this
the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt Tribunal further said:
that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case
at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the bare relationship of attorney
Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This stern rule
liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, unprofessional practice. . . . It is founded on principles of public policy, of good
regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not taste. As has been said in another case, the question is not necessarily one of the
fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper
Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorney, like
GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid
The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration the appearance of treachery and double dealing. Only thus can litigants. be
cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount
liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional importance in the administration of justice, It is unprofessional to represent
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned given
intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the matter after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to
“intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. Respondent
Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence lawyer must be suspended for 3 years violation of Canon 6 of the CPR,
the subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist
where the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous
such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court rules that the
intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions
that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court
is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in
determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is
not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A
lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should
not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which
he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a
vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on
certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this
restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain
reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the
government and 2. relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the service.
GISELA HUYSSEN vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ
A.C. No. 6707; March 24, 2006
Facts:
A. A Complaint for disbarment was filed by Huyssen against respondent
Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez. Allegations are as follows:
- that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID), she (petitioner herein) and her
three sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas
under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law
- Respondent told the petitioner that their visa applications will be acted
favourably if they deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one
year which could be withdrawn after one year.
- Complainant deposited with respondent on six different occasions
from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000,
believing it was required by law.
- Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he received the
amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies
of official receipts despite her demands
- Complainant demanded the deposited sum after a year but respondent
failed to return.
- Thus, the World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant was a
member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the immediate return
of the money
- In a letter (March 9, 1999), respondent promised to release the amount
not later than 9 March 1999. But he failed to do so.
- World Mission for Jesus sent another demand letter
- In a letter explaining the alleged reasons for the delay in the release of
deposited amount (19 March 1999), he enclosed two blank checks
postdated to 6 April and 20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to
fill in the amounts.
- When complainant deposited the postdated checks on their due dates,
the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped payment
on the same.
- In a letter (25 April 1999) respondent explained again for stopping
payments and gave complainant five postdated checks with the
assurance that said checks would be honoured
- Complainant deposited the five postdated checks on their due dates but
they were all dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient
funds or payment thereon was ordered stopped by respondent.
-
Hence, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two
demand letters to respondent, which remained unheeded.
B. Complaint disbarment was filed by Huyssen in the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On 15
November 2000, Victor C. Fernandez, Director for Bar Discipline,
required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt
thereof
C. Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001, respondent denied the allegations
in the complaint claiming that having never physically received the
money mentioned in the complaint, he could not have appropriated or
pocketed the same. He said the amount was used as payment for
services rendered for obtaining the permanent visas in the Philippines.
Read defense below:
[a)Through a close-friend, Jovie Galaraga, a Pastor and
likewise a friend of the complainant, the latter was
introduced to me at my office at the Bureau of
Immigration with a big problem concerning their stay in
the Philippines, herself and three sons, one of which is
already of major age while the two others were still
minors then. Their problem was the fact that since they
have been staying in the Philippines for almost ten (10)
years as holders of missionary visas (9G) they could no
longer extend their said status as under the law and
related polic[i]es of the government, missionary visa
holders could only remain as such for ten (10) years after
which they could no longer extend their said status and
have to leave the country.
b)Studying their case and being U.S. Citizen (sic), I
advised them that they better secure a permanent visa
under Section 3 of the Philippine Immigration Law
otherwise known as Quota Visa and thereafter, provided
them with list of the requirements in obtaining the said
visa, one of which is that the applicant must have a
$40,000 deposited in the bank. I also inform that her son
Marcus Huyssen, who was already of major age, has to
have the same amount of show money separate of her
money as he would be issued separate visa, while her
two minor children would be included as her dependents
in her said visa application. I advised them to get a
lawyer (sic), complainant further requested me to refer
to her to a lawyer to work for their application, which I
did and contacted the late Atty. Mendoza, an
Immigration lawyer, to do the job for the complainant
and her family.
c)The application was filed, processed and followed-up
by the said Atty. Mendoza until the same was finished
and the corresponding permanent visa were obtained by
the complainant and her family. Her son Marcus
Huyssen was given an independent permanent visa
while the other two were made as dependents of the
complainant. In between the processing of the papers
and becoming very close to the complainant, I became
the intermediary between complainant and their counsel
so much that every amount that the latter would request
for whatever purpose was coursed through me which
request were then transmitted to the complainant and
every amount of money given by the complainant to
their counsel were coursed thru me which is the very
reason why my signature appears in the vouchers
attached in the complaint-affidavit;
d)That as time goes by, I noticed that the amount
appeared to be huge for services of a lawyer that I myself
began to wonder why and, to satisfy my curiosity, I met
Atty. Mendoza and inquired from him regarding the
matter and the following facts were revealed to me:
1)That what was used by the complainant as
her show money from the bank is not really
her money but money of World Mission for
Jesus, which therefore is a serious violation
of the Immigration Law as there was a
misrepresentation. This fact was confirmed
later when the said entity sent their demand
letter to the undersigned affiant and which is
attached to the complaint-affidavit; ECISAD
2)That worst, the same amount used by the
complainant, was the very same amount used
by her son Marcus Huyssen, in obtaining his
separate permanent visa. These acts of the
complainant and her son could have been a
ground for deportation and likewise
constitute criminal offense under the
Immigration Law and the Revised Penal
Code. These could have been the possible
reason why complainant was made to pay for
quite huge amount.
e)That after they have secured their visas, complainant
and her family became very close to undersigned and my
family that I was even invited to their residence several
times;
f)However after three years, complainant demanded the
return of their money given and surprisingly they want
to recover the same from me. By twist of fate, Atty.
Mendoza is no longer around, he died sometime 1997;
g)That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is
now being hidden and that the amount of money is now
being sought to be recovered from me;
h)That the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a
lawyer I know the consequences of having signed the
same and therefore I had to answer for it and pay. I tried
to raised the fund needed but up to the present my
standby loan application has not been released and was
informed that the same would only be forthcoming
second week of August. The same should have been
released last March but was aborted due to prevalent
condition. The amount to be paid, according to the
complainant has now become doubled plus attorney's
fees of P200,000.00.]
D. 4 September 2002 and April 2003  Complainant submitted her
evidence
E. 25 August 2003  Complainant filed her Formal Offer of Evidence
F. 11 settings of hearings were all rest by respondent, who was allegedly
out of the country to attend to his client's needs. The last, on 28
September 2004, respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and
without just cause.
G. 5 November 2004 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan submitted her report recommending the disbarment of respondent
 a. Basis: From the letters sent by respondent, he made it
appear that the US$20,000 was officially deposited with the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. However, if this is
true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers were issued by
respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said
sum and official receipts therefore were never issued by the
said Bureau? Also, why would respondent issue his
personal checks to cover the return of the money to
complainant if said amount was really officially deposited
with the Bureau of Immigration? All these actions of
respondent point to the inescapable conclusion that
respondent received the money from complainant and
appropriated the same for his personal use. It should also
be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the "late
Atty. Mendoza" referred to in his Counter-Affidavit really
exists. There is not one correspondence from Atty.
Mendoza regarding the visa application of complainant and
his family, and complainant has also testified that she never
met this Atty. Mendoza referred to by respondent.
Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the
fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board of
Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has caused
damage to the reputation and integrity of said office. It is
submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon
6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
H. 4 November 2004  IBP Board of Governors approved the
Investigating Commissioner's report with modification. Atty. Fred L.
Gutierrez was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to
return the amount with legal interest from receipt of the money until
payment.
a. The case was also referred to the Office of the Ombudsman
for prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for
appropriate administrative action
Issue: WON respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and must severely penalized.
Held: YES.
SC explained that:
A. Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task
have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral
integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a
responsible public office.
B. Defense of respondent remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit
evidence on the matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already
died, he did not present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza.
Worse, the action of respondent in shifting the blame to someone who
has been naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright
ignominious. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged,
it is not enough that he deny the charges against him; he must meet the
issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that
he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all
times is expected of him. In the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short
of his duty. Records show that even though he was given the
opportunity to answer the charges and controvert the evidence against
him in a formal investigation, he failed, without any plausible reason,
to appear several times whenever the case was set for reception of his
evidence despite due notice. The defense of denial proferred by
respondent is, thus, not convincing. It is settled that denial is inherently
a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by a strong
evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-
serving and is with nil evidentiary value
C. When respondent issued the postdated checks as his moral obligation,
he indirectly admitted the charge. Such admissions were also apparent
in the letters of respondent to complainant. (lifted parts of the letter
were quoted by SC decision)
D. Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of
appropriating the money of another. As correctly observed by the
Investigating Commissioner, respondent would not have issued his
personal checks if said amount were officially deposited with the BID.
This is an admission of misconduct.
E. WHAT WAS VIOLATED IN THE CPR?
a. Respondent's act of asking money from complainant in
consideration of the latter's pending application for visas is
violative of Rule 1.01, which prohibits members of the Bar
from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest,
or deceitful acts.
b. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the
Code which bars lawyers in government service from
promoting their private interest. Promotion of private
interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary
value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office
or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
i. Respondent's conduct in office betrays the
integrity and good moral character required
from all lawyers, especially from one occupying
a high public office. A lawyer in public office is
expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust
and confidence of the citizenry in government;
he must also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise
said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper
of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than his brethren in private practice.
ii. In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to
camouflage his misdeed, he went on
committing another by issuing several
worthless checks, thereby compounding his
case.
iii. Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only
did he misappropriate the money of
complainant; worse, he had the gall to prepare
receipts with the letterhead of the BID and
issued checks to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly,
he does not deserve to continue, being a
member of the bar.
iv. Time and again, we have declared that the
practice of law is a noble profession. It is a
special privilege bestowed only upon those who
are competent intellectually, academically and
morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct
himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must
faithfully perform his duties to society, to the
bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation
of the high standards of the legal profession
subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions
which includes suspension and
disbarment. More importantly, possession of
good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of
law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a
ground for the revocation of such privilege.
v. Indeed, the primary objective of administrative
cases against lawyers is not only to punish and
discipline the erring individual lawyers but also
to safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the courts and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the
legal profession persons whose utter disregard
of their lawyer's oath have proven them unfit to
continue discharging the trust reposed in them
as members of the bar. These pronouncement
gain practical significance in the case at bar
considering that respondent was a former
member of the Board of Special Inquiry of the
BID. It bears stressing also that government
lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to
the public service, a public trust. As such,
government lawyers should be more sensitive to
their professional obligations as their
disreputable conduct is more likely to be
magnified in the public eye. As a lawyer, who
was also a public officer, respondent miserably
failed to cope with the strict demands and high
standards of the legal profession.
vi. Respondent's acts constitute gross misconduct;
and consistent with the need to maintain the
high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the
faith of the public in the legal profession,
respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of
expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers
F. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of
law and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant
with legal interest from his receipt of the money until payment.
a. This case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman
for criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for
appropriate administrative action.
b. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant
to be spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and
the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to
all courts throughout the country.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY
INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.
A. M. No. 491
October 6, 1989
FACTS: In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention
Center, the newly-elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4,
1989 before the Supreme Court en banc. However, disturbed by the widespread
reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed
or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the
columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending
by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the
association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C.
Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention of
certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation
of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities, the Supreme Court en banc,
exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend
the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the
reports. The prohibited acts are against the IBP By-Laws more specifically Article
I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Sec. 14. Prohibited acts and practices
relative to elections and Section 12[d] of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for
violations of the above rules: Any violation of the rules governing elections or
commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14
[Prohibited Acts and Practices Relative to Elections) of the By-laws of the
Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his
removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions
upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.
ISSUE Whether or not the candidates violated the IBP By-Laws.
DECISION: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only
violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which
imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the
constitution and the laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes"
and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional
Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who
are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly
brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.
The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the
association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of
lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not
uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions, denials and
outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the witnesses, including tome
of the candidates, during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding
committee was created. The subsequent investigation conducted by this
Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with the Court
and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold
vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the
campaign.
SANTOS VS. LLAMAS
FACTS: This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of
bar membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who for
a number of years has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data
(date & palce of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal
259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years already, as shown by the
following attached sample pleadings in various courts in 1995, 1996 & 1997.
Respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not
paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present. He
likewise admit that as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this
Court, he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in court, at least
for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP
chapter membership and receipt number for the years in which those pleadings
were filed. He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited" practice and
that he believes in good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such
as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, as a senior citizen since 1992.
ISSUES: Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his standing
in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6
years and therefore liable for his actions.
Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing
to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
HELD: Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01
which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual
dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension
ofmembership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a
ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does
not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law.
Moreover, While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior citizens "exemption
from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption however does
not include payment of membershipor association dues.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the
pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view
of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for
a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of one year
suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever
is later, is appropriate. Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues,
whichever is later.
In re: 2003 Bar Examinations
B.M. No. 1222, February 4, 2004.
Per Curiam
FACTS:
On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the bar examination on
the Mercantile Law subject. Investigation was lead back to the office of Atty.
Marcial O.T. Balgos, then Mercantile Law Examiner, where the leakage started.
Allegedly, Atty. Danilo de Guzman (assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos and
Perez) stole a copy of Atty. Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the proposed test
items, and the former sent it to some members of the Beta Sigma Lambda
Fraternity.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. de Guzman are guilty of gross misconduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
RULING:
Yes. De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the
examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar. As for Atty.
Balgos’ negligence, if he had taken those simple precautions to protect the secrecy
of his papers, nobody could have stolen them and copied and circulated them. The
integrity of the bar examinations would not have been sullied by the scandal.
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO AREVALO
Facts: Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter to the SC requesting for exemption from
payment of his IBP dues from 1977-2005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He
contends that after admission to the Bar he worked at the Civil Service
Commission then migrated to the US until his retirement. His contention to
be exempt is that his employment with the CSC prohibits him to practice his law
profession and he did not practice the same while in the US. The compulsion that
he pays his IBP annual membership is oppressive since he has an inactive status
as a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of non-payment of the same
constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of due process of the
law.
Issues:
1. Is petitioner entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time
that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service
from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003?
2. Does the enforcement of the penalty of removal amount to a deprivation of
property without due process?
Held:
1. No. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation. If
the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident
to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be
possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means to defray the
expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to
impose such exaction.
The payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of
which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of
dues subsists for as long as ones membership in the IBP remains regardless of the
lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.
2. No. Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one
that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here pause
to consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the police power of the State, and
under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the
respondents right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and
is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee
as a regulatory measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its
payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as
unreasonable or arbitrary.
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a
mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court
to exact compliance with the lawyers public responsibilities.
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment
of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the loss of such
privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016
PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED
BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR.
AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA, Respondents.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
The Complaint alleged that sometime in June 2007, the Senate, through its
Committee on Government
Corporations and Public Enterprises, conducted an investigation concerning the
anomalies that plagued the PHILCOMSAT group of companies, which includes
complainant, particularly in its huge disbursements of monies and/or assets. In the
course of the said investigation, the Senate examined various financial records and
documents of the company, which at that time, were under the control and
management of Atty. Lokin, Jr. and his co-directors. Among the records examined
by the Senate was an entry in complainant's checkbook stub which reads "Cash
for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case - P2,000,000"3 (subject checkbook
entry). It was then discovered that the check was issued in connection with
complainant's injunction case against Philippine Overseas Telecommunications
Corporation (POTC) before the Sandiganbayan, which was filed by Atty. Lokin,
Jr.'s group, as its representatives, with Atty. Labastilla as its external counsel
(POTC case). As the investigation was publicized by the media, the
Sandiganbayan learned about the subject checkbook entry and, accordingly, motu
proprio initiated indirect contempt proceedings against respondents, along several
others.
After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution dated May
7, 2009, finding
respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of indirect contempt and,
accordingly, sentenced each of them to pay a fine in the amount of P30,000.00
and to suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. In finding respondents
guilty, the Sandiganbayan opined that: (a) any person reading the subject
checkbook entry would come to the conclusion that a check in the amount of
P2,000,000.00 was issued to the Sandiganbayan in exchange for the latter's
issuance of a TRO, thereby degrading its integrity and honor; (b) Atty. Lokin, Jr.
caused the creation of the said entry in complainant's checkbook which as testified
upon by complainant's bookkeeper, Desideria D. Casas, was the proximate cause
thereof; and (c) circumstantial evidence showed that Atty. Labastilla conspired
with Atty. Lokin, Jr. in causing such contemptuous entry, considering, inter alia,
that the former was the counsel who applied for a TRO and that he admitted receipt
of the proceeds of the check, although allegedly for legal fees and that Sheriffs
Manuel Gregorio Mendoza Torio and Romulo C. Barrozo of the Sandiganbayan
similarly testified that such TRO was only effected/served upon payment of the
corresponding fees.
Following the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan's May 7, 2009 Resolution, the
complainant instituted the instant complaint.
In his defense, Atty. Lokin, Jr. maintained that he did not perform acts violative
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), insisting that the
Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect contempt case were erroneous and
contrary to the pertinent evidence and records.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2013, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner found
Atty. Lokin, Jr. administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be
meted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. However, Atty.
Labastilla was absolved
from any administrative liability. Similar to the Sandiganbayan, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Lokin, Jr. responsible for the creation of
the subject checkbook entry.
On the other hand, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found no evidence
showing that Atty. Labastilla had any participation in the making of the subject
checkbook entry, and as such, could not be reasonably implicated therein.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid report and
recommendation. Atty. Lokin, Jr. moved for reconsideration, but the same was
denied in a Resolution dated June 6, 2015 with modification increasing the
recommended period of suspension from the practice of law to three (3) years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents violated the canons of Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes.
As members of the Bar, respondents should not perform acts that would tend to
undermine and/or
denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as the subject checkbook entry which
contumaciously imputed corruption against the Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn
duty as lawyers and officers of the court to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution;
without this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations.
This is the very thrust of Canon 11 of the CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer
shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others." Hence, lawyers who are remiss in
performing such sworn duty violate the aforesaid Canon 11, and as such, should
be held administratively liable and penalized accordingly, as in this case.
Furthermore, Canon 7 of the CPR commands every lawyer to "at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession" for the strength of the legal
profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyer's duty
to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and
keeping his actions beyond reproach. It must be reiterated that as an officer of the
court, it is a lawyer's sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the
proper administration of justice; as acts and/or omissions emanating from lawyers
which tend to undermine the judicial edifice is disastrous to the continuity of the
government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people. Thus, all lawyers
should be bound not only to safeguard the good name of the legal profession, but
also to keep inviolable the honor, prestige, and reputation of the judiciary. In this
case, respondents compromised the integrity of the judiciary by maliciously
imputing corrupt motives against the Sandiganbayan through the subject
checkbook entry. Clearly, respondents also violated Canon 7 of the CPR and, thus,
should be held administratively liable therefor. Anent the proper penalty to be
meted to respondents, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers
perform acts which tend to erode the public confidence in the courts, put the courts
in a bad light, and bring the justice system into disrepute, the Court imposed upon
them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. Under the foregoing
circumstances, the Court imposes upon Atty. Labastilla the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for his complicity in the
making of the subject checkbook entry. On the other hand, since Atty. Lokin, Jr.
was the one directly responsible for the making of the subject checkbook entry,
the Court deems it appropriate to impose upon him the graver penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, as
recommended by the IBP.
WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Sikini C.
Labastilla are found GUILTY of
violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years,
while Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
effective upon the receipt of
this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Decision be attached to respondents' personal record as members
of the Bar. Likewise,
let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on
the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.
SO ORDERED
Zaguirre vs Castillo WILSON PO CHAM v. ATTY. EDILBERTO PIZARRO

Rule 7.03 | 6 March 2003 | Per Curiam A.C. No. 5499, 16 August 2005

The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity,

Nature of Case: Petition for Disbarment
Petitioner: Carmelita Zaguirre
Respondent: Atty. Alfredo Castillo
SUMMARY: Petition for Disbarment was filed by complainant Zaguirre
against Atty. Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
 A Petition for Disbarment was filed by complainant Zaguirre against
Atty. Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.
 Complainant Zaguirre and Respondent Atty. Castillo were officemates
at NBI.
 Castillo courted her and promised to marry her while representing
himself to be single.
 They soon had an intimate relationship that lasted for a year
 During the affair, Castillo was preparing for the Bar exams which he
passed
 Zaguirre eventually learned that Castillo was already married when his
wife confronted her in her office.
 Zaguirre executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship with Castillo
and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his. Zaguirre
gave birth to Aletha Jessa.
 Castillo started to refuse to recognize the child.
 Castillo's defense: What transpired bet them was nothing but mutual
lust and desire. Men, by nature, are polygamous. Zaguirre is 10 years
older than him and she knew that he was married. The child was not
his because she was seeing other men at the time of their affair. He
only executed the affidavit to save her from embarrassment.
 IBP Commission of Bar Discipline: Guilty of gross immoral conduct
and recommends indefinite suspension.
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or suspension.
Upon Atty. Edilberto Pizarro’s representations to complainant Wilson Po Cham
(Po Cham) that a certain parcel of land being offered for sale to him was alienable
and disposable, Po Cham gave Atty. Pizarro two checks representing the purchase
price of the said property. Po Cham subsequently took possession of the property
and installed a barbed wire fence at its front portion. Soon after, however, a forest
guard approached him and informed him that the property could not be fenced for
the reason that it was part of the Bataan National Park. Upon investigation, Po
Cham discovered that the property is not an alienable or disposable land
susceptible of private ownership.
Po Cham demanded the return of the purchase price but Atty. Pizarro did not heed
to the demand. Po Cham thereafter charged Atty. Pizarro of violation of
his oath as a member of the Bar.
The Supreme Court (SC) referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision. The IBP, in its
Report and Recommendation, found Atty. Pizarro to have violated his oath as a
member of the Bar. It recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3
months, subject to the approval of the members of the Board of Governors. The
case was forwarded to the SC for final action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pizarro violated his solemn oath as a lawyer
HELD:
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor
to thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law conferupon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or suspension.

Atty. Pizarro has utterly failed to substantiate his documented claim of

ISSUE/S & RATIO: having irrevocable rights and interests over the property which he could have
conveyed to Po Cham. Atty. Pizarro must thus be faulted for fraudulently inducing
1. WON Castillo violated the Code? YES. Po Cham to purchase non-existent ―irrevocable rights, interest and participation‖
 The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP. over an inalienable property.
 Rule 7.03 – 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.
 Immoral conduct – that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
 Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way
below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.
 The attempt of the Castillo to renege on his notarized statement
recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is
highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession,
tantamount to self-stultification.
 It cannot be said that it is unknown to him than a applicant for
admission to membership in the bar must show that he possesses
good moral character – a continuing requirement.

RULING: INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED until such time that respondent is able

to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court that he had instilled in himself a firm
conviction of maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every
member of the profession.

NOTE:

Rule 7.03 – 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.