UI v. ATTY.

BONIFICACIO

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest

standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing
less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as
officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.

A.C. NO. 3319 – JUNE 8, 2000

DE LEON, JR., J.

FACTS:

Complainant married a certain Carlos Ui, and together begot 4 children. In 1987, complainant found that
his husband was carrying an illicit relationship with Atty. Bonifacio, and said relationship bore a daughter
sometime in 1986.

Complainant, upon the facts aforementioned, filed for the disbarment of respondent. She alleges that
respondent committed acts of gross immorality.

Respondent admitted to the relationship. However, she posits that she never knew of said Carlos Ui’s
true marital status.

Respondent also argues that she was in good faith, that once she knew of the truth, she stayed away
from the complainant’s husband.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent should be disbarred on account of gross immorality.

RULING:

NO. The Court defined gross immorality as the flagrant act of moral indifference to the opinion of the
good public, and the same act amounting to a crime or being highly reprehensible.

While the Court doubted the respondent’s excuse of not knowing the marital status, there being no
substantial evidence that directly proves she actually knew the truth, gave credence to the mitigating
circumstance of her distancing herself from the time she knew of the truth.

IN THE MATTER OF PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES OF 1946 –
1953; ALBINO CUNANAN ET AL.

It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs
exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character,
or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
MARCH 18, 1954

DIOKNO, J.

On June 21, 1953, R.A. 972 was passed, otherwise known as the Bar Flunkers’ Act.

Said law aimed to: 1) modify the bar passing rate prospectively; 2) modify the bar passing rate
retroactively so as to allow the bar flunkers to be admitted in practice.

Said law was product of protestations of petitioners herein for them to be excused of their failing rate;
the same owing to the fact that they were unprepared due to WWII just having ended.

ISSUE:

WoN R.A. 972 was constitutional.

RULING:

NO. Insofar as the provisions retroacting to allow the bar flunkers to be admitted, the Act was void. It
violates the principle of separation of powers, because the Constitution vests primary control to the SC
as to who will be admitted to the bar.

While Congress can adjust the passing rate prospectively, it cannot annul the decision already made by
the Court with respect to those already flunked.

ZORETA v. ATTY. SIMPLICIANO

it has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.
It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that
those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the
courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization by
a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document
admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
A.C. NO. 6492 – NOVEMBER 18, 2004

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that in 2001, he filed in the RTC a complaint for breach of contract with damages
against a certain corporation. Respondent herein was the counsel of the latter company.

Complainant alleged in this case that during respondent’s representation for said company, he had
notarized various documents; that however, respondent was not duly commissioned as a notary public
in 2002 as per court records in Quezon City.
ISSUE:

WoN respondent was duly commissioned as notary public.

RULING:

NO. Consequently, his act of notarizing various documents for the alleged period was unlawful.

The Court herein stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest, such that only members of the bar duly qualified and accepted may act
as a notary public.

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO

The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit
or unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times
to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but
the administration of justice.

A.C. NO. 389 – FEBRUARY 28, 1967

REGALA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant Quingwa filed a complaint charging Atty. Puno with gross immorality and misconduct.

Complainant is an educated woman, a public school teacher for numerable years. She alleged that
respondent was courting her during 1958. One day, respondent proposed that they go to a movie
theater. However, she was subsequently brought to Silver Moon Hotel.

In registering in the hotel, respondent registered them as “Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno.” While in the hotel
room, she was asked for sexual intercourse by the respondent upon promise of marriage.

Sometime in 1959, complainant gave birth to a boy. When asked about the marriage, respondent
negated on his promise.

In his answer, respondent averred that his act is not one of the grounds for disbarment or suspension
under Sec. 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent may be disbarred.

YES. One of the requirements for admission to the bar is that the person must have good moral
character. The same is a continuing requirement and a subsequent violation thereof is a ground for
disbarment.

Further, the Court explained the grounds therein enumerated are not exclusive; that the Court has
ultimate prerogative whether or not a lawyer may be disbarred by reason of his misconduct.
ROYONG v. ATTY. OBLENA
It is true that the respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery on this count,
and that the grounds upon which the disbarment proceedings is based are not among those
enumerated by Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be disbarred. But
it has already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts to
exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it is a necessary incident to the
proper administration of justice; it may be exercised without any special statutory authority, and in all
proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the power may be exercised in any manner
that will give the party be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to be heard.

A.C. NO. 376 – April 30, 1963

BARRERA, J.

Complainant charged respondent administratively of rape and prayed for the latter’s disbarment.

Complainant was the daughter of the woman with whom respondent had been cohabiting. It was
alleged that they had been involved with a love affair, but, upon instruction of the lawyer, they were not
to have sex until after she reached the age of majority.

Respondent countered that they never had sexual relations only after complainant reached aged of
majority. Respondent, however, admitted that they were only doing acts of “torrid kissing.”

It was alleged by the complainant and subsequently found by the Solicitor General that: 1) respondent
took advantage of his legal knowledge to convince complainant to have illicit relations with him; 2)
respondent committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with a married woman even after
his passing the bar; 3) respondent failed to have the required good moral character of a lawyer.

ISSUE:

WoN such illicit relations of respondent with complainant and his cohabitation with another married
woman are sufficient grounds as for his disbarment.

RULING:
YES. The Court reiterated that the grounds for disbarment enumerated in the RoC are not exclusive.
Hence, his act of seducing a minor and later on engaging in sexual relations, on top of cohabiting with a
married woman, spoke of the moral depravity of respondent.

ABAIGAR v. ATTY. PAZ

From all indications, there is little room for doubt that she filed his disbarment case not in redress of
a wrong, for there was no wrong committed. It was a voluntary act of indiscretion between two
consenting adults who were fully aware of the consequences of their deed and for which they were
responsible only to their own private consciences."

A.M. NO. 997 – SEPTEMBER 10, 1979

FERNANDEZ, J.

FACTS:
Complainant seeks for the disbarment of respondent. The complaint alleges that she sought the legal aid
of respondent in a divorce case filed by her husband.

She made a phone call to the office of Congressman Bagatsing to seek such aid. Respondent answered
the call and volunteered his legal services.

After the termination of the case, respondent professed his love for complainant. She alleged that at
first, she was hesitant, because she knew respondent to be married.

Respondent, however, posited that it was only a church marriage and the same was not binding
supposedly in the civil courts.

A year thereafter, a certain Virginia Paz introduced herself to complainant, saying that he was the wife
of respondent. Complainant was also made aware that Virginia Paz and complainant were married civilly
and in church.

In an investigation conducted by the Solicitor General, it was found that complainant completely of the
respondent’s situation and that she voluntarily acceded to the proposals.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent may be disbarred on account of grossly immoral conduct.

RULING:

NO. The Court adopted the Solicitor General’s finding, insofar as her act of filing a disbarment case was
not a redress of a wrong, for there was no wrong committed. It was a voluntary act of indiscretion
between two consenting adults; being fully aware of its consequences should not bear the situation by
themselves.

A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. ATTY. VALERIO

deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments
for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not
only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the
peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform
their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01
explicitly states that:

A.C. NO. 8390 – JULY 2, 2010

PERALTA, J.

FACTS:
Complainant is a financing corporation who granted a loan to respondent amounting to P50,000.
Respondent issued in her name a check to secure for the payment thereof.

After failing to pay the loan, complainant presented the check to the bank for payment on its maturity
date. However, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Despite repeated demands, respondent did not heed. Complainant now seeks for sanctions against the
erring lawyer in this administrative complaint.

Respondent lawyer was asked for a comment by the IBP with regards to the complaint. Respondent
repeatedly failed to obey the orders of the IBP.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent should be sanctioned.

RULING:
YES. It has been held prior by the Court that a violation of B.P. 22 and issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct for lawyers. Further, respondent’s non-reply to the orders of the IBP was
unlawful disobedience.

BON v. ATTY. ZIGA

Arcangel seems to be laboring under a misguided understanding of the

basic principles of the Notarial Law. It is well to remind him that notarization is
not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public
document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and
credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large
must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed by a notary public
and appended to a private instrument. For this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined. [27]

A.C. NO. 5436 – MAY 27, 2004

TINGA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant filed for the disbarment against Atty. Ziga and Atty. Arcangel.
Complainant alleged that respondents conspired with each other and caused complainant’s party,
through fraud, to sign a waiver and quitclaim. Such waiver turned out to be a cession of complainant’s
properties to respondents.

As regards Atty. Arcangel, it was found that he caused the notarization of such waiver and quitclaim
even without the signing parties present.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent lawyers are liable.

YES. Atty. Arcangel failed to exercise due diligence in so notarizing the document when the parties
concerned were not present before him. Atty. Ziga, however, was found not to have erred at all, the
waiver and quitclaim being valid.

CASTANEDA v. AGO

We condemn the attitude of the respondents and their counsel who,

far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use
them to subvert the very ends of justice.6

Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the
court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of
conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality
in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies
and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his
client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist
the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.7

G.R. NO. L-28546 – JULY 30, 1975

CASTRO, J.

FACTS:

Petitioners filed a replevin suit against respondent to recover certain machineries. The same was won
complainants and subsequently a final deed of sale in favor of petitioners were executed.

Some months later, respondent herein filed a complaint to annul the deed of sale executed by the
sheriff. Another lower court issued a restraining order against herein petitioners and the RD of QC,
enjoining them from registering the final deed of sale.
During the proceedings of the 2nd case, the restraining order was lifted by the QC court. Respondents
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC. The Court found no merit and dismissed their
petition.

Subsequently, respondent with their counsel filed for further appeals and certiorari attempts with the
CA and the SC. All were denied.

ISSUE:

WoN respondents, together with their counsel Atty. Luison, misused legal remedies to thwart the
satisfaction of judgment due the complainants.

RULING:
YES. Lawyers should not abet their clients in so pursuing and abusing the legal system to the prejudice of
others. In doing so, they have delayed the rightful execution of judgment for 14 years in total.

THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS v. ATTY. BAYOT

t is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his
wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the
public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the
money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worth and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of
character and conduct."

A.C. NO. L-1117 – MARCH 20, 1944

OZAETA, J.

FACTS:

Respondent is a lawyer who is now charged with malpractice for an advertisement he published in the
Sunday Tribute (June 13, 1943):

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity
avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free
for the poor. Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service

12 Escolta, Manila, Room 105

Tel. 2-41-60.

Complainant now charges respondent with malpractice for the ad which the former theorizes as a
violation of the ethical code of lawyers.

ISSUE:
WoN respondent violated the ethics of the lawyering profession.

RULING:

YES. Sec. 25, Rule 127 of the RoC explicitly provides that “the practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.”

The Court explained that the profession of law is not a trade or a business. It is a public service. Further,
they stressed that the best advertisement for lawyers is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.

Thus, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or by use
of simple professional cards.