39.

BAR MATTER 850, October 2, 2001

This is a resolution and not a case. Im skipping this , please read the
full text of the resolution for recit/discussion purposes.
CANON 6
40. VITRIOLO VS. DASIG
FACTS: This is a administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S.
Dasig , an official of Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charges involve s
gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for heaving her
office secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of CHED.
The evidence were refuted, given the respondents failure , despite of opportunities
afforded her by the Court.
ISSUE: Whether or Not a Lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official.
HELD: Yes, if said misconduct constitutes a violation of his Oath of as a lawyer ,
then he may be disciplined by the Court as a member of the Bar.
For the violations of the Attorney;s Oath as well as Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of
Canon 1 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct , the court disbarred
respondent, Felina Dasig.

41. PEOPLE VS. HON. JUDGE HERNANDO PINEDA, CFI LANAO DEL NORTE
FACTS: Night of July 29, 1965. Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres
fired in rapid succession at the house of Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de
Mendoza, instantly killing Teofilo. Thereafter, the 3 perpetrators destroyed the door
of the house , entered therein, and let loose several shots killing Neceforo Mendoza,
Epifania Mendoza and Marcelo Mendoza all minor children of the couple and
wounding Valeriana. The investigating fiscal filed four separate crimes of murder
and a frustrated murder resulting from the firing of several shots at five victims. The
trial judge Pineda directed the City Fiscal to unify all the 5 cases, and file one single
information.
ISSUE : Whether or not the trial judges order should prevail over the fiscals .
HELD: No. In a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the
fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those
of the fiscals should normally prevail.

42. COLLANTES VS. RENOMERON

FACTS: Atty. Fernando Collantes, house counsel for V&G Better Homes Subdivision,
Inc, filed against Atty. Vicente Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for
the latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G. He filed
charges of unreasonable delay of actions on the documents, conduct unbecoming of
public official , dishonesty, extortion, directly receiving pecuniary and material
benefits, causing undue injury to GSIS, gross ignorance of the law. National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration, Administrator Teodoro Bonifacio
recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordonez the investigation of the case,
to which respondent was found guilty. Secretary Ordones recommended to President
Cory Aquino the dismissal from service of Atty Renomeron, to which the President
signed Adm. Order 165 to effect the same. After 2 weeks, Atty Collantes also filed
before the SC a disbarment complaint against the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or Not a Lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for malfeasances as a government official.
HELD: Yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his
oath as a lawyer.

43. HUYSSEN VS GUTIERREZ

FACTS: Complainant Gisela Huyssen and her 3 sons, all American citizens applied
for their Philippine Visas at the Bureau of Immigration, where Atty. Fred Gutierrez
was employed. Respondent to Huyssen that they need to deposit $20,000.00 for a
period of 1 year which could be withdrawn after. After a year, the respondent could
not produce the money despite the complainants repeated demands. A complaint
was filed in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Investigating Commissioner
Milagros San Juan recommended the disbarment of respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or Not a Lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for malfeasances as a government official.
HELD: Yes, the respondent was found to be in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and breach of Rule 6.02 of said Code.

44. MISAMIN VS SAN JUAN

FACTS: MIGUEL A. SAN JUAN, was a captain of the Metro Manila Police Force and at
the same time a member of the bar. He appeared as counsel for the New Cesars
Bakery before the NLRC vs an employee, Jose Misamin, who filed a charge of
violation of Minimum wage law . San Juan was also being accused of coercing the
complainant into dropping the said charge. The matter was referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it
would seem that the complainant had a change of heart. In the subsequent
hearings, his lawyer did not appear and in one of hearings the complainant
manifested that his complaint be withdrawn.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent, as member of the bar be found in violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: No. The Solicitor General held that the complaint be dismissed for lack of
evidence. The Tionko Doctrine as set forth by Justice Malcolm : The serious
consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is clear
preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the
attorney is innocent of the charges preferred and has perfrormed his duty as an
officer of the court in accordance with his oath.