Spouses Yu vs Palana

Facts: Complainants met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy (Mr. Uy) who introduced himself as
the Division Manager of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation (Wealth
Marketing). Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants, together with other investors, to invest a
minimum amount of P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent with said company. They were made to
believe that the said company had the so-called "stop-loss mechanism". It turned out, however,
that Wealth Marketings promises were false and fraudulent. They discovered that Wealth
Marketing had already ceased its operation and a new corporation was formed named Ur-Link
Corporation (Ur-Link) which supposedly assumed the rights and obligations of the former.
Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office where they met the respondent. As Wealth
Marketings Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent assured the complainants that UrLink would assume the obligations of the former company. To put a semblance of validity to
such representation, respondent signed an Agreement to that effect which, again, turned out to be
another ploy to further deceive the investors. This prompted the complainants to send demand
letters to Wealth Marketings officers and directors which remained unheeded. They likewise
lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the respondent and his co-accused.
Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into hiding and has been successful
in defying the law, to this date
Issues W/N respondent should be disbarred
Held: Yes. The fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving the same set of facts
is still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note
that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from
and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute
a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
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 to do so
The Court notes that this is not the first time that respondent is facing an administrative case, for
he had been previously suspended from the practice of law in Samala v. Palaa and Sps. Amador
and Rosita Tejada v. Palaa. In Samala, respondent also played an important role in a corporation
known as First Imperial Resources Incorporated (FIRI), being its legal officer. As in this case,
respondent committed the same offense by making himself part of the money trading business
when, in fact, said business was not among the purposes for which FIRI was created. Respondent

was thus meted the penalty of suspension for three (3) years with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Likewise, in Tejada, he was
suspended for six (6) months for his continued refusal to settle his loan obligations
Samala vs Palana
Facts: Complainant was looking for a company where he could invest his dollar savings.
Respondent assured him that through FIRI he would be directly putting his investment with
Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited, a reputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has
been in the foreign exchange business for 13 years. Due to the personal representations and
assurances of respondent, Agustin, and Bernal, complainant was convinced and he invested his
dollar savings. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. On April 15, 2001,
complainant asked Agustin when his money would be returned. Agustin told him that the request
was sent to Thomas Yiu of Eastern Vanguard at Ortigas Center. Complainant went to see
Thomas Yiu at his office. Yiu was surprised when he saw the documents involving complainant's
investment. Yiu phoned Agustin and demanded an explanation as to where the money was.
Agustin said that he would return complainant's investment at FIRI's office in Makati. On the
same day, in the presence of respondent, Agustin delivered to complainant a check in the amount
of P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent of complainant's investment with FIRI. On May 2, 2001,
the said check was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient funds. Complainant
informed respondent of the dishonor of the check. Respondent assured him that the check would
be replaced. On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant P250,000
in cash and a check in the amount of P329,045.09. Respondent told complainant that the check
was signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his (respondent's) presence and assured
complainant that the check would be funded. But on June 28, 2001, the check was dishonored
because it was drawn against insufficient fund. In an Order dated January 27, 2003, Director for
Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez required respondent to submit his Answer to the Complaint
within 15 days from receipt thereof. Despite receipt of said order as evidenced by a registry
return receipt dated February 3, 2003, respondent did not submit an Answer. The case was
referred to Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the Commission on Bar Discipline for
investigation. Respondent failed to appear when the case was set for hearing on April 8, 2003,
despite due notice. Hence, respondent was declared in default and the case was heard ex parte.
Issue: W/N respondent should be suspended from the practice of law
Held: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. To this end, nothing should be done by
any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. In this case, respondent assured
complainant that by investing his dollar savings with FIRI, his investment was in a stable
company, even if, as it was later discovered, the by-laws of FIRI prohibited it from engaging in

investment or foreign exchange business and its primary purpose is "to act as consultant in
providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on."
When complainant decided to withdraw his investment from FIRI, the first check given to him in
the amount of his total investment bounced. Thereafter, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI,
gave complainant P250,000 in cash and a check for P329,045.09. Respondent assured
complainant that the second check was a "good check" and that it was signed by Paul Desiderio,
the alleged president of FIRI. However, the said check bounced because it was drawn against
insufficient funds, and the drawer of the check, Paul Desiderio, could not be located when sought
to be served a warrant of arrest since his identity was unknown and his residential address was
found to be non-existent.
Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused material
damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and lessened the confidence of the public in the honesty and integrity of the
same.
Spouses Tejada vs Palana
Facts: Respondent lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana taking advantage of his special knowledge as a
lawyer represented to the petitioners that he has an alleged parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (73196) 16789 and that he needs an amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could reconstitute the torrens title on the same. Respondent then
induced by sweet promises and assurances petitioners spouses to finance such undertaking with a
solemn commitment on his part that after he has already reconstituted such torrens title, he will
deliver the same to the petitioners spouses as security for the amount they had financed.
However, after respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana had gotten the P100,000.00 amount from
the petitioner spouses, respondent from that time on up to the present had intentionally evaded
the performance of his due, just, legal and demandable obligations to petitioner spouses.It turned
out that all his assurances that he had a torrens title, he will reconstitute the same and deliver an
amount of P170,000.00 to petitioner spouses were all fraudulent representations on his part or
else were only fictitious in character to defraud petitioner spouses of their hard owned monies.
Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint as required by the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise failed to appear on the scheduled
date of the mandatory conference despite due notice
Issue: W/N respondent should be suspended
Held: Yes. Respondent, like all other members of the bar, is expected to always live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following
Canons, viz:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
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.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty,
and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he shall be of
good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the
legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the
profession. In the instant case, respondents unjustified withholding of petitioners money years
after it became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of integrity and fairness, and this is
further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought against him. Instead of meeting
the charges head on, respondent did not bother to file an answer nor did he participate in the
proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his conduct.
Guevarra vs Eala
Facts: He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene
Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
(sometimes spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had three children. After his marriage to
Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had
been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I
love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall. In February or March 2001, complainant saw
Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. Complainant later found, in the master's
bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when
unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene.

Issue:W/N Eala should be disbarred

Held:Yes. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. That the marriage between complainant and
Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took
place before the marriage was declared null and void.43 As a lawyer, respondent should be
aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed,
unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.44 In carrying on an
extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant
was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an
institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.

Advincula vs Macabata
Facts: Sometime on 1st week of December 2004 complainant [Cynthia Advincula] seek the legal
advice of the respondent [Atty. Macabata], regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel
and Tours. As promised, he sent Demand Letter dated December 11, 2004 (copy attached as
Annex "I") to the concerned parties.
On February 10, 2005, met (sic) at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss
the possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not
settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and
while she is about to step out of the car, respondent hold (sic) her arm and kissed her on the
cheek and embraced her very tightly.
Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks
coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in
Court. After the meeting, respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they
met. Along the way, complainant was wandering (sic) why she felt so sleepy where in fact she
just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of
Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost restless respondent
stopped his car and forcefully hold (sic) her face and kissed her lips while the other hand was
holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked (sic) succeeded in resisting his
criminal attempt and immediately manage (sic) to go (sic) out of the car.

Issue: Whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute serious
moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law

Held: No. But respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED to be more prudent and cautious in his
dealing with his clients with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed
on him for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future. Guided by the definitions
above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship
and camaraderie,27 forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of respondent, though,
in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are distasteful.

However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly
immoral

Heirs of Villanueva vs Atty. Beradio

Facts: During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in
Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2522.
Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas in 1974. Their five children, namely, Simeona, Susana,
Maria, Alfonso, and Florencia, survived them. On 22 May 1984, Alfonso executed an Affidavit of
Adjudication 1 (affidavit of adjudication) stating that as "the only surviving son and sole heirs
(sic)" of the spouses Villanueva, he was adjudicating to himself the parcel of land under OCT
No. 2522. Alfonso then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 2 (deed of sale) on 5 July 1984,
conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Respondent appeared as notary public on both
the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale. Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso,
his sister Florencia was still alive at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the
deed of sale, as were descendants of the other children of the spouses Villanueva.
Complainants claimed that respondent was aware of this fact, as respondent had been their
neighbor in Balungao, Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent constantly
mingled with their family. Complainants accused respondent of knowing the "true facts and
surrounding circumstances" regarding the properties of the spouses Villanueva, yet conspiring
with Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares in the property

Issue: W/N respondent should be disbarred or suspended

Held: WHEREFORE, for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, we REVOKE the commission of respondent Atty. Salud P. Beradio as Notary
Public, if still existing, and DISQUALIFY her from being commissioned a notary public for one
(1) year. We further SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months effective
upon finality of this decision. On its face, Alfonsos affidavit does not appear to contain any
"illegal or immoral" declaration. However, respondent herself admitted that she knew of the
falsity of Alfonsos statement that he was the "sole heir" of the spouses Villanueva. Respondent
therefore notarized a document while fully aware that it contained a material falsehood, i.e.,
Alfonsos assertion of status as sole heir. The affidavit of adjudication is premised on this very
assertion. By this instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate all to himself, to
the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, respondent notarized the deed of sale, knowing
that the deed took basis from the unlawful affidavit of adjudication. Where admittedly the notary
public has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to
be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to
discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public
confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondents conduct amounted to a
breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also

violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Samala vs Valencia
Facts: Before us is a complaint1 dated May 2, 2001 filed by Clarita J. Samala (complainant)
against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds: (a)
serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) knowingly misleading
the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange
for nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate
children.
Issue: W/N respondent should be suspended from the practice of law.

Held: Yes. On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
We find respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who
are all over 20 years of age, 48 while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has
eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife
died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998. 49Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was
staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider
his affair with Lagmay as a relationship 50 and does not consider the latter as his second
family. 51 He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in
Muntinlupa and another in Marikina. 52
In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on
the charge of immorality. During the hearing, respondent did not show any remorse. He even
justified his transgression by saying that he does not have any relationship with Lagmay and
despite the fact that he sired three children by the latter, he does not consider them as his
second family. It is noted that during the hearing, respondent boasts in telling the commissioner
that he has two houses - in Muntinlupa, where his first wife lived, and in Marikina, where
Lagmay lives. 53 It is of no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of
his first wife. The fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting standard of
morality and decorum required of the legal profession.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of
moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer,
immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community. 54 Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for
keeping a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community. 55 That
respondent subsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and that this is his
first infraction as regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct
and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt
of herein Resolution.
St. Louis vs Dela Cruz
Facts: This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of
SLU-LHS, predicated on the following grounds:
1) Gross Misconduct:
From the records of the case, it appears that there is a pending criminal case for child abuse
allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed before the Prosecutors Office of
Baguio City; a pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents
before an Investigating Board created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts
of misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by
SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal
deduction of salary by respondent.
2) Grossly Immoral Conduct:
In contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage; and
3) Malpractice:
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.
According to complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on 31 May 1982 at
Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas. He thereafter
contracted a subsequent marriage with one Mary Jane Pascua, before the Honorable Judge
Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October 1994, said second marriage was subsequently annulled for
being bigamous.
On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately subscribed and
notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite expiration of
respondents notarial commission on 31 December 1987. A Certification1 dated 25 May 1999
was issued by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that
respondent had not applied for commission as Notary Public for and in the City of Baguio for the
period 1988 to 1997. Respondent performed acts of notarization,

Issue: W/N respondent is liable under Canon 1.01

Held: Yes. The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by
a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so,
the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act without
such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the
Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is,
for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath
similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By acting as a notary public without the
proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Donton vs Tansingco
Facts: In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") stated that he filed
a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document4 against Duane O. Stier
("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay ("Maggay") and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the
Occupancy Agreement. Complainant averred that respondents act of preparing the Occupancy
Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real
property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code.
Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation
of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.
In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant filed the
disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainants counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A.
Alentajan,7 because respondent refused to act as complainants witness in the criminal case
against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he "prepared and notarized" the
Occupancy Agreement and asserted its genuineness and due execution.
In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

Issue:W/N respondent is violated canon 1.02

Held: Yes. The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of
the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.9 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest
scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action
against the lawyer.10
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from
owning real property.11Yet, in his motion for reconsideration,12 respondent admitted that he

caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of
the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainants name. But
respondent provided "some safeguards" by preparing several documents,13including the
Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the actual owner of the
property despite its transfer in complainants name. In effect, respondent advised and aided
Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands14 by
preparing said documents.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code
when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign
ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end.
Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.
Ronquillo vs Cezar
Facts: In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment.1 For the
price of P1.5M, respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests
over a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City.
Respondent also obligated himself to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he
executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer, dated April 19, 1996. Upon full payment of
the purchase price, respondent further undertook to have Crown Asia execute a Deed of
Absolute Sale over the property in favor of the complainants. Complainants subsequently
received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in full the price of the
townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment. Respondent also failed to deliver
to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia. For these
reasons, complainant Marili Ronquillo ordered the bank to stop payment on the second check
she issued to respondent in the amount ofP187,500.00. On March 6, 2000, complainants,
through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they were still willing to pay the
balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that respondent work on Crown
Asias execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. In the alternative, complainants
demanded the return of the amount of P937,500.00, plus legal interest, within ten days.3 The
amount of P937,500.00 represents theP750,000.00 down payment and the first quarterly
installment of P187,500.00 which complainants paid respondent.
In a letter dated May 2, 2000, addressed to complainants,4 respondent claimed that he was
"working now on a private project which hopefully will be realized not long from now," and
requested for "a period of twenty days from May 15, 2000 within which to either completely pay
Crown Asia or return the money at your (complainants) option." The period lapsed but
respondent did not make good his promise to pay Crown Asia in full, or return the amount paid
by complainants.
On February 21, 2002, complainants counsel sent respondent a second letter5 demanding the
return of the amount of P937,500.00, including legal interest, for failing to comply with his
promise. The demand was unheeded.

Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice
of law.
Issue: W/N respondent violated Canon 1.01
Held: Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may
be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does
not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. This Court has made
clear in a long line of cases7that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a
contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question. When he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of
his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be
gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal
right of ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
concealed this lack of right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he has
not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right
to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment.
His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made
matters worse for him.
Respondents adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she paid
him, which was the fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker for ten (10) years, is
morally reprehensible. By his actuations, respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of
morality required by the Code of Professional Responsibility and violated the trust and respect
reposed in him as a member of the Bar, and an officer of the court.

Tomlin vs Moya

Facts: Complainant averred that respondent borrowed from him P600,000.00 partially covered
by seven postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their
respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee bank. Complainant made
several demands, the last being a formal letter4 sent on September 25, 2002;5 however,
respondent still failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. Consequently,
complainant instituted a case for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the
respondent before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.6 In addition, he filed the
instant case for respondents disbarment.
On December 1, 2003, respondent was directed to file his answer but instead he filed several
motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading7 and a motion to dismiss complaint.8
Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule on nonforum shopping. He argued that complainant did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta.
Maria, Bulacan.9 Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case despite the
pendency of the criminal cases is a form of harassment which should not be allowed.

Issue: W/N respondent is violated the CPR

W/N there is forum shopping
Held: First issue -Yes. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As 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. In so doing, the peoples faith and
confidence in the judicial system is ensured.19 Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their
professional or in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
probity and good demeanor.20 Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private
capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good
character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the
continuance of such privilege.21
In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant but
offered no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several
demands, both verbal and written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself
scarce. Although he acknowledged his financial obligations to the complainant, respondent
never offered nor made arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize
any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross
misconduct.22 Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a lawyer to faithfully perform at
all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As part of his duties, he
must promptly pay his financial obligations

Second issue- No. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another24 or when

he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.25 Forum shopping
applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.26 Moreover,
Criminal Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondents
act of making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks; while the present administrative
case seeks to discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to pay his debt in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
lavvph!1.net

Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers
belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of
criminal cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in
an administrative case, only preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances
are attendant in the administrative proceedings.
Soriano vs Dizon
Facts: Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit1 for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon, filed by
Roberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). Complainant alleges that the conviction of respondent for a crime involving
moral turpitude, together with the circumstances surrounding the conviction, violates Canon 1 of

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;2 and constitutes sufficient ground for his
disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.3
Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer to the Complaint, the CBD issued a
Notice dated May 20, 2004, informing him that he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing
had been scheduled for June 11, 2004.4After that hearing, complainant manifested that he was
submitting the case on the basis of the Complaint and its attachments.5 Accordingly, the CBD
directed him to file his Position Paper, which he did on July 27, 2004.6Afterwards, the case was
deemed submitted for resolution.
On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered her Report and
Recommendation, which was later adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its
Resolution No. XVI-2005-84 dated March 12, 2005.
In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged that respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility; and that the conviction of the latter for frustrated
homicide,7 which involved moral turpitude, should result in his disbarment
Issue: W/N respondent should be disbarred
Held: Yes. It is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm18 and his
unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.19 He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed

the lawful orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his attorneys oath20 and in the Code
of Professional Responsibility, he bound himself to "obey the laws of the land."
Po Cham vs Pizzarro
Facts: Complainant gives the following account of the facts that spawned the filing of the
present administrative complaint.
Sometime in July 1995, Emelita Caete (Caete), Elenita Alipio (Alipio), and now deceased
Mario Navarro (Navarro) who was then the Municipal Assessor of Morong, Bataan, offered for
sale to him a parcel of land with an area of approximately forty (40) hectares, identified as Lot
1683 of Cad. Case No. 262, situated at Sitio Gatao, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan (the
property).
He having expressed interest in the offer, Caete and Navarro arranged a meeting between him
and respondent at the latters residence in Balanga, Bataan1 where respondent categorically
represented to him that the property being offered for sale was alienable and
disposable.2 Respondent in fact presented to him 1) Real Property Tax Order of Payment3 dated
July 10, 1995 covering the property signed by Edna P. Pizarro as Municipal Treasurer and
Navarro as Municipal Assessor; 2) a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated July 25, 1995 purportedly
executed by the alleged previous actual occupant of the property, one Jose R. Monzon
(Monzon), transferring all his rights, interest and possession thereover in favor of Virgilio
Banzon (Banzon), Rolando B. Zabala (Zabala) and respondent for an agreed consideration
of P500,000.00; and 3) Special Power of Attorney5 dated July 25, 1995 executed by Banzon and
Zabala authorizing him (respondent

Issue: W/N respondent should be suspended

Held: Yes. The Bar is enjoined to maintain a high standard of not only legal proficiency but of
honesty and fair dealing.41Thus, a member should refrain from doing any act which might lessen
in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the legal profession.42
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 confer upon him, may be sanctioned with
disbarment or suspension.43
Thus, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyers oath; 6) willful disobedience to any
lawful order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without

authority.And he may be faulted under Canon1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

mandates a member of the Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. Rule
1.01 of the Code specifically enjoins him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. "Conduct," as used in this rule, is not limited to conduct exhibited in
connection with the performance of professional duties. In the case at bar, as reflected above,
complainant presented certifications from the DENR that the property is part of the public
domain and not disposable as it is within the Bataan National Park. Indeed, by virtue of
Proclamation No. 2445 issued on December 1, 1945, all properties of the public domain therein
designated as part of the Bataan National Park were withdrawn from sale, settlement or other
disposition, subject to private rights. On the other hand, respondent has utterly failed to
substantiate his documented claim of having irrevocable rights and interests over the property
which he could have conveyed to complainant. E.g., he could have presented any document
issued by the government conferring upon him and his alleged co-owners, or even upon his
alleged predecessors-in-interest, with any such right or interest, but he presented none. He
merely presented a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by a certain Jose R. Monzon in
his, Banzons and Zabalas favor on July 25, 1995, a month shy of the execution on August 21,
1995 of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of complainant. It is jurisprudentially established
though that in a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is not blameless or
is in pari delicto as this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge
the law profession of unworthy members to protect the public and the courts