A.

Upholding the Constitution and the Law

- Montecillo vs Gica, 60 SCRA 234
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del
Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals judges
intimating that he thinks the CA justices knowingly rendered an unjust decision and judgment has been rendered
through negligence and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.

The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a
second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be
punished for contempt.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the
court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards
the court so essential to the proper administration of justice.

It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of
alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they
knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with
gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.

Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.

- Lee vs Tambago, Adm Case No. 5281, February 12, 2008

- Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the
Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged
signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses. In the said will, the decedent
supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to
Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of complainant.

ISSUE: Was the will spurious?

HELD: Yes, thus Tambago violated the Notarial Law and the ethics of legal profession.

The law provides for certain formalities that must be followed in the execution of wills. The object of solemnities
surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and
testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.

The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to safeguard the testators wishes long after his
demise and (2) to assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.

A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this particular requirement was
neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the
residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of
the testators old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions
by respondent invalidated the will.

As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a
will and those of notarization. These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded.

- In re Gutierrez, 5 SCRA 661 (1962)

Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of one Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was sentenced to
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a portion of the penalty, he was granted a conditional
pardon by the President. He was released on the condition that he shall not commit any crime. Subsequently, the
widow of Samaco filed a disbarment case against Gutierrez by reason of the latters conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Murder, is without a doubt, such a crime.
 ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted pardon.

HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but conditional. It merely remitted his sentence. It does
not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for murder without regard to the
pardon (which he invoked in defense). The crime was actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having
been committed in hand, by taking advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the time)
and with the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged from
the profession.

- Oronce vs Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 133 (1998)

Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using abusive
methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the
CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.

Held: Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in contravention of the
existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are
unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they peacefully took over the property, such
peaceful take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force.
Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

- De Ysasi vs NLRC, 231 SCRA 173 (1994)

Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The elder Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros
Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III
underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while hes nursing from his infections he was
terminated, without due process, by his father. De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the
National Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his son actually abandoned his work.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.

HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being manifested
by some overt acts. No such intent was proven in this case.

The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering that the parties involved are father
and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers to have
both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort was made. The useful function of a
lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit.
He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of life. He should
be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of
litigation.

Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that (a) lawyer shall encourage his client
to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. Both counsel fell short of what was
expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, the labor arbiter who
handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a
labor arbiter shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction. If he
ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are
barren of any reflection of the same.
- Pajares vs Abad Santos 30 SCRA 748 (1969)
-
- Manuel Yuhico vs Fred Gutierrez, A.C. No. 8391, November 23, 2010
- Attorney; gross misconduct. Deliberate failure to pay just debts 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 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.
-
- Nelia Pasumbal de Chavez-Blanco vs Jaime Lumasag Jr., A.C. No. 5195, April 16, 2009

- Melvyn G. Garcia vs. Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 03,
2015
Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreo, claiming that the latter still practices law despite being
convicted of homicide in Criminal Case CBU-31733, and despite being on parole and not having fully served his
sentence.

Sesbreo argues that his sentence was commuted and the phrase "with the inherent accessory penalty provided by law"
was deleted. He also claims that homicide does not involve moral turpitude. He claims that the complaint was purely
motivated by bad faith and malice.

According to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), the RTC found Sesbreo
guilty of murder and was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court (SC) downgraded the crime to
homicide and he was sentenced to serve imprisonment of 9 years and 1 day as minimum period and 16 years and 4
months imprisonment as maximum period. It held that homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude to be a ground
for dismissal, depending on the circumstances of the crime. It also reviewed the ruling of the SC and found that the
circumstances leading to the death of the victim in the criminal case involved moral turpitude.

The IBP-CBD quoted the SC:

"Respondent acted like a god who deserved not to be slighted by a couple of drunks who might have shattered the
stillness of the early morning with their boisterous antics...Respondent was not only vindictive without a cause; he was
cruel with a misplaced sense of superiority."

Issue: Is moral turpitude involved in a conviction for homicide?

Ruling: Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended as
attorney of the Court by reason of his conviction of a crime against moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society, in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

Sesbreo was found to have just indiscriminately fired against the victims, Without being provoked, he fired at them. The
SC rejected his argument that the commutation given by the President of the Philippines restored his civil and political
rights. There was no mention that the executive clemency was absolute and conditional and restored Sesbreo to his
full civil and political rights. The penalty for Sesbreo's crime was never wiped out. Commutation is a mere reduction of
penalty. It only partially extinguished criminal liability.

The SC repeated that the practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted only to those possessing good moral
character. A violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
penalty against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment.

Sesbreo was ordered DISBARRED.

-
- Atty. Roy B. Ecraela vs. Atty. Ian Raymond Pangalanan, A.C. No. 10676, September 8, 2015

This is a case for disbarment against Atty. Pangalangan for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of
authority as an educator, and "other unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the legal
profession."
 Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the University of the Philippines (UP)
College of Law in 1990, where they were part of a peer group or barkada with several of their classmates. After
passing the bar examinations and being admitted as members of the Bar in 1991, they were both registered with
the IBP Quezon City.

Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin (Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children.
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with
married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit relations involved:

1. AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of Law, from 1990 to 1992, which complainant had
personal knowledge of such illicit relations; 2. BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from 1994 to
1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin; 3. CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also being
romantically involved with DDD; 4. DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002, despite still being married
to Jardiolin and while still being romantically involved with CCC; 5. EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime
during the period from May 2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still being romantically involved with CCC.

Issue: Should Atty. Pangalangan be disbarred?

Ruling: Atty. Pangalangan was disbarred by the SC for grossly immoral conduct.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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 shall he,
whether in public or private life. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in
order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

In the case at bar, complainant alleged that respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit relations with both
married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007, including complainant's own wife. Through
documentary evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses
presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant
evidence.

In sum, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage,
and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in
the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar,
thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.

B. Making Legal Services Available

- People vs Estebia, 27 SCRA 106 (1969)
- People vs Rosqueta, 55 SCRA 486 (1974)

Rosqueta Jr and two others were convicted of a crime. They appeal their conviction until it reached the Supreme
Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte), Atty. Gregorio Estacio, failed to file their Brief. And so the Supreme Court
ordered Atty. Estacio to show cause why he should not be disciplined for failure to file said Brief. Atty. Estacio
failed yet again to submit his explanation. The Supreme Court then suspended him from the practice of law except
for the purpose of filing the Brief in this particular case. Atty. Estacio then filed a Motion for Reconsideration where
he explained that he did actually prepare an explanation the same being left with Rosqueta Sr (father of accused)
for the latter to mail it. But then Rosqueta Sr.s house burned down together with the explanation. He only came to
know of this fact when he was preparing for the Motion for Reconsideration.
 Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are withdrawing their appeal by reason of their failure to raise the
needed fund for the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Estacios suspension should continue.
HELD: No. His liability is mitigated. But the Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been irresponsible, has
been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients. Atty. Estacio should be aware that even in those cases
where counsel de parte is unable to secure from his clients or from their near relatives the amount necessary to
pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case. He should be aware that in
the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about
the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such
inattention as shown in this case is inexcusable.

C. Applicability of Code to Government Lawyers

- Macoco vs Diaz, 70 Phil 97 (1940)
A complaint for malpractice filed by one Marcelino Macoco against Esteban B. Diaz, attorney-at-law, with license
to practice in Philippine courts. In order to redeem a property belonging to his wife's father, which had been levied
upon sold at public auction, complainant Marcelino Macoco deposited with the provincial sheriff of Ilocos Norte the
sum of P380. As no redemption could be done, the money was returned by the sheriff to one Alberto Suguitan,
then counsel for Marcelino Macoco. Suguitan used the money according to himself and failed to turn it over to
Macoco; whereupon, the latter entrusted its collection to respondent herein, Esteban B. Diaz. It appears that Diaz
succeeded in collecting P300 from Suguitan, but he also misappropriated this amount.

Respondent admitted the misappropriation. He averred, however, that he had an agreement with Macoco for the
payment of the money by him misappropriated; that when this agreement failed, he again entered into a similar
arrangement with Hermenegildo Galapia, Lope Ragragola and Pedro Ragragola, who, as he attempted to prove,
were the persons to whom the sum of P300 was really due, Macoco being merely a trustee thereof; and that in
pursuance of this arrangement whereby he would pay the sum of P300, deducting therefrom 20 per cent for his
attorney's fees, he had already made partial payments to said persons.

Macoco, however, and Lope Ragragola denied this agreement. Whatever might have been the agreement and
with whomsoever respondent might have entered it into, the undeniable fact remains that he misappropriated the
money in breach of trust. This makes him unfit for the office of an attorney-atlaw. And his being a deputy fiscal and
not law practitioner at the time of the misappropriation, far from mitigating his guilt, aggravates it. Want of moral
integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

Wherefore, respondent Esteban B. Diaz is hereby disbarred from the practice of law, and is hereby ordered to
surrender his certificate to the clerk of court within five days from notice. This Solicitor General is hereby ordered
to investigate the conduct of Attorney Alberto Suguitan and file later the corresponding report.

- Pimentel vs Llorente, 339 SCRA 154 (2000)

Facts: Petitioner, Aquilino Pimentel who was then running for Senator in the 1995 elections filed a complaint for
disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach
of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath. This is in connection with the discharge of their duties as members of
the Pasig City Board of Canvassers.

Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of said
Board, while Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman as
provided by law. Petitioner alleges that, in violation of R.A. No. 6646, 27(b), respondents tampered with the votes
received by him, through illegal padding.

He maintains that, by signing the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despite
respondents' knowledge that some of the entries therein were false, the latter committed a serious breach of
public trust and of their lawyers' oath. Respondents denied the allegations and alleged that the preparation of the
SoVs was made by the canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to assist in the canvassing. They
claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which this matter had been referred, recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed petition
before this Court. Issue: Whether or not respondents were guilty of misconduct and violation of the lawyers oath.
Holding: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct but a
systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of petitioner in complete
disregard of the tabulation in the election returns.

Despite the fact that these discrepancies, especially the double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the
variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC, were apparent on the face of these
documents and that the variation involves substantial number of votes, respondents nevertheless certified the
SoVs as true and correct.

Their acts constitute misconduct. As a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the
misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be
disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.

In this case, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01
of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they
likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to "do no falsehood." The above committed acts would have
merited suspension were it not for the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and in the case of
Salayon, after a long public service. Under, the circumstances the Court find respondents guilty of misconduct and
imposes on each of them a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 with a warning that commission of similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.

- Cabral vs Puno, 70 SCRA 606 (1976)

- PCGG vs Sandiganbayan and Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 151800-12, April 12, 2005

1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank extended
loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks assets was held with the Lucio Tan
Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the
liquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and
cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation to this
case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by
taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of
Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from
the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse
position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as counsel was beyond
the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.

Issue: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza

Held: No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.

The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to
proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the
PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.

The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in
the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.
SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza.
Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting
desperate

Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the
government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting
cases in the future that were related to ones work as a government counsel.