1st Case

TITLE:
ALFREDO B. ROA VS ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO

FACTS:
Atty. Juan R. Moreno sold to Roa a parcel of land to Alfredo B. Roa and paid Atty.
Moreno P70,000in cash as full payment for the lot. Atty. Moreno did not issue a deed
of sale instead he issued a temporary receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy.
Atty. Moreno assured Roa that he could use the lot from then on.
Roa learned that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not be registered in the Register of
Deeds. When Roa went to see Atty. Moreno, the latter admitted that the real owner of
the lot was a certain Rubio. He also said there was a pending legal controversy over the lot.
Thereafter, Roa sent a letter to Atty. Moreno demanding the return of the P70, 000 paid for the lot.
Roa then filed a criminal case against Atty. Moreno. MTC rendered a decision convicting
Atty.Moreno of the crime of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 1
of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, the RTC, for lack
of evidence establishing Atty. Morenos guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
acquitted Atty. Moreno.
Roa filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) an Affidavit-Complaint
against Atty.Moreno. The IBP found Atty. Moreno guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended to suspend Atty. Moreno
from the practice of law for three months and ordered him to return the amount of
P70, 000. The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the present case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Moreno should be disciplined and ordered to return the amount
of money paid for the sale

HELD:
Atty. Morenos refusal to return to Roa the money paid for the lot is unbecoming a member of
the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, Atty. Moreno failed to live up to the
strict standard of Professionalism required by the Code of Professional responsibility.

Atty. Morenos credibility is highly questionable. Records show that he even issued a b
ogusCertificate of Land Occupancy to Roa whose only fault was that he did not know
better. The Certificate of Land Occupancy has all the badges of intent to defraud. It purports to
be issued by the "Office of the General Overseer." It contains verification by the "Lead,
Record Department" that the lot plan "conforms with the record on file." It is even
printed on parchment paper strikingly similar to a certificate of title. To
the unlettered, it can easily pass off as a document evidencing title. True enough, Roa
actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the Register
of Deeds. Roa readily parted with P70, 000 because of the false assurance afforded by
the sham certificate.
The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of Atty. Moreno are not
without recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states "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," Further, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides "A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties.
A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanour or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
In the present case, Atty. Moreno acted in his private capacity. He misrepresented
that he owned the lot he sold to Roa. He refused to return the amount paid by Roa. As
a final blow, he denied having any transaction with Roa. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the
Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is enjoyed only by those who continue to
display unassailable character. Thus, lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach
at all times, not just in their dealings with their clients but also in their dealings with the public at
large, and a violation of the high
moral standardsof the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appro
priate penalty, including suspension and even disbarment.
Atty. Morenos refusal to return to Roa the money paid for the lot is unbecoming a
member
of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, Atty. Moreno failed to live up to
the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Morenos acts violated the trust and respect Roa reposed in him as a member of the Bar
and an officer of the court. However, the penalty of three-month suspension recommended by the
IBP is insufficient to atone for Atty. Morenos misconduct in this case.

Supreme Court did not sustain the IBPs recommendation ordering Atty. Moreno to
return the money paid by Roa. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only
issue is whether the officer of the c o u r t i s s t i l l f i t t o b e a l l o w e d t o
continue as a member of the Bar. The court's only concern is the
determination of Atty. Morenos administrative liability

2ND CASE

TITLE:
BENILDA M. MADDELA v. ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO

FACTS:
A disbarment case was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by h
erein Complainant Benilda M. Maddela (Maddela) against Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao
(Atty. Galicinao) foracts unbecoming a public servant and a lawyer, grave misconduct and
slander.Maddela averred that she loaned an amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,
000.00) from Atty.Galicinao. In November 2001, since part of the loan remained unpaid,
Atty. Galicinao went to Maddela's office and took the latters cash gift check
amounting to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) in her absence
and without her knowledge. There, Atty. Galicinao 'uttered
unsavory and humiliating words' against her. On other occasions, Atty. Galicinao
collected from Maddela an amount equivalent to one-half of the face value of the checks
she received as benefit from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
On 10 December 2002, the respondent went again to the office of the complainant and
demanded one-half of the value of the check representing a cash gift of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5, 000). Maddela refused, reasoning that it was a cash gift, not a
JDF check and, therefore, not covered by their agreement.
Maddela's refusal to part with the amount angered Atty. Galicinao, prompting the
latter to raise her voice, utter 'unsavory remarks' against Maddela, and banged her
fist on top of the Maddela's table, causing the glass top of the table to break.
To further support her bid for the disbarment of Atty. Galiciano, Maddela, through the affidavit of
acertain Mr. Rilloraza, alleged that Atty. Galicinao is also guilty of notarizing documents
outside the area of her commission.
Maddela claimed that although Atty. Galicinao was not yet a lawyer, she was issued a
notarial commission and even notarized certain documents outside of her commission. Maddela
likewise alleged that despite the death of Atty. Galicinaos husband, Atty.

Galicinao continued to receive and encashment for at least (3) three months checks corresponding
to her husband's salaries as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of Nueva
Vizcaya
Maddela even pointed out that Atty .Galicinao continued to claim the higher allowable
deductions as a married individual despite the death of her husband. Atty. Galiciano
denied the allegations but with respect to the documents that she notarized outsideof
her notarial commission, she reasoned that she did such for her relatives and she did
not derive any income from the transactions.
In 2004, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted her report and recommendation. She
stated that Atty. Galicinao was able to prove that she was not the creditor of the
Maddela and that Atty. Galicinao did not claim her husband's salary and avail herself of the higher
allowable tax deductions even after his death.
However, she will be suspended for six (6) months for the acts of notarizing
outside the area of her notarial commission and obtaining the JDF checks of the
complainant from the cash clerk in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 27-2001.
On 16 April 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-227 in CBD
No. 03-1060, annulling and settling aside commissioner Maalas
recommendation dismissing the administrative complaint against Atty. Galicinao
with respect to the charge of violating a Supreme Court Circular for collecting a loan
for which she acted as a guarantor; and imposing upon the respondent the penalty of
reprimand for her act of notarizing documents outside the area where she was commissioned as a
notary public. The said ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court with a modification as to the
penalty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Galicinao should be disciplined for having notarized
documents outside of her notarial commission

HELD:
Notarization is invested with substantive public interest
s u c h t h a t o n l y t h o s e who are qualified may act as notaries public.
We have declared on several occasions, that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinely 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 the authenticity thereof (Nunga v. Viray,
A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155, 160 [1999]).
Thus, we are not satisfied with respondent's explanation that she notarized documents
outside of the area of her notarial commission as a favor to her relatives and for free. Whether the
respondent derived profit from her act of notarizing outside the area of her authority is of no
moment. The fact remains that she notarized outside the area of her commission. Considering,
however, that her misconduct as a notary public was committed while she was not yet a lawyer,
she could not be disciplinarily dealt with as a lawyer. The penalty that should be meted
to her should, therefore, be as a notary public before she was admitted to the Bar. The
penalty of fine would be a sufficient sanction.

3rd Case

TITLE:
TERESITA D. SANTECO v. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE

FACTS:
An administrative complaintwas filed by Teresita D. Santeco against respondent Atty. L
una B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, which was filed before the RTC of
Makati City. The result of such administrative complaint was the suspension of Advance
from the practice of law for five years and ordered to return P3, 900 to her client
after she was found guilty of gross misconduct for abandoning her
client in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orde
r s d i r e c t e d a t h e r w i t h o u t a n y explanation for doing so.
However, while still suspended, Avance appeared in three cases as Atty. Liezl Tanglao as stated ina
letter-report of Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales. In a
resolution, the Court ordered Avance to comment on said letter-report. However, she
failed to do so. The Court then reiterated its order. Again, despite receipt of the two
resolutions, she still failed to comply.
Thus, the Court issued a resolution finding Avance guilty of indirect contempt and
ordering her to pay a fine amounting to P30, 000. It also sternly warned her
that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
Despite due notice, she failed to pay the fine.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the action or inaction of Atty. Avance is a ground for her disbarment

HELD:
A lawyer who wilfully disobeys the lawful order
o f t h e c o u r t d e s e r v e s t h e ultimate penalty of disbarment.
It held that respondents conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an
officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Courts orders.
She wilfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice despite the fiveyear suspension order against her and evenmisrepresented herself to be another person in
order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to comment on her
continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from her despite
receipt of two Resolutions form this Court. Neither did she pay the P30, 000 fine
imposed in the Resolution.
In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in
the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself.
Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate
penalty of disbarment