COBB-PEREZ VS LANTIN

24 SCRA 219 – Legal Ethics – Counsel’s Assertiveness

A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latter’s
failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in
his favor. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Damaso
worth P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed the amount of said
property was more than the amount of the debt. Judge Lantin, issuing judge,
found merit on this hence he amended his earlier decision and so he issued a
second writ this time directing the sheriff to conduct a public sale on Damaso’s
210 shares of stock approximately worth P17k.
Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to
enjoin the public sale. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the
SC ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without merit; that their
numerous petitions for injunction are contemplated for delay. In said decision, the
Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but said cost should
be paid by their counsels. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme
Court as they claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their
professionalism; that “If there was delay, it was because petitioners’ counsel
happened to be more assertive . . . a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be
condemned.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused.
HELD: No. A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not
tolerated is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position,
as in the case at bar. 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 client’s 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.

OBUSAN VS OBUSAN JR

128 SCRA 485 – Legal Ethics – Grossly Immoral Conduct

Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one Natividad
Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo begot a son with Obusan. Obusan later found out that
Estabillo was at the time still validly married with one Tony Garcia. Four days after
the birth of his son with Estabillo, Obusan married Preciosa Razon. The couple lived
more than a year together until one day when Obusan left the conjugal home
and never returned.
Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has been living
with Natividad Estabillo. Preciosa then filed a disbarment case against Obusan on
the grounds of gross immorality and adultery. Preciosa presented the testimonies
of the neighbors of Estabillo who all testified that Estabillo and Obusan presented
themselves as husband and wife in their community.
ISSUE: Whether or not Obusan should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his wife. He even
failed to file responsive pleadings. Hence, on the strength of the evidence against
him, he is guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning one’s wife and resuming
carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, falls within “that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community”. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
required of a member of the bar.

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO

FACTS: Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a

member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. Complainant is an
educated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of years.
The respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the
hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. Complainant submitted to
respondent's plea for sexual intercourse because of respondent's promise of
marriage and not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness
and mutual passion. Complainant gave birth to a baby boy supported by a
certified true copy of a birth certificate and to show how intimate the relationship
between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified that she
gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her.

The respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a
special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for
disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Puno should be disbarred/suspended.

HELD: YES. One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Baris
that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). It is
essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege
to maintain good moral character. When his integrity is challenged by evidence,
it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue
and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still maintains
the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him.
With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the
charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under
any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as
enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a
settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to
suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers
cannot be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme Court held that
an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of court states that:

A member of the bar may be removed 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 wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded
and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that
members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves
in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:

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.
Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a
consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

MORTEL VS ASPIRAS

100 Phil 586 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer may be disbarred even if transgression is not
one enumerated by law
In 1952, Atty. Anacleto Aspiras introduced himself as a single man to Mortel. The
latter believed it and he let Anacleto court her. Anacleto, with flowery words,
promised to marry Mortel. With this promise, Mortel agreed to have carnal
knowledge with him. Later, Anacleto persuaded Mortel to go to Manila so that
they could marry there. Mortel complied. However, Anacleto did not secure the
marriage license with Mortel, instead he let Cesar Aspiras, whom he introduced
to Mortel as his nephew, secure it with Mortel. Further, in the marriage ceremony,
Anacleto made Mortel believe that Cesar will be his proxy in the wedding. So it
happened that Mortel married Cesar – who turned out to be Anacleto’s son,
worse, Cesar was a minor. Worst still, after Cesar’s and Mortel’s marriage,
Anacleto continued to cohabit and have carnal knowledge with Mortel until the
latter got pregnant, and until the latter found out that Anacleto is married and he
has a son, Cesar.
ISSUE: Whether or not Anacleto should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. Though it may be said that Anacleto’s moral transgression did not
amount to crime nor is it one of those enumerated by statute still his moral
delinquency as proved by the facts as aggravated by his mockery of marriage
which is an inviolable social institution and his corruption of his minor son to marry
Mortel just so he could redeem his promise of marriage to Mortel – all these
concur to Anacleto being unfit to continue being a member of the legal
profession. The Supreme Court ordered his disbarment.

TERRE VS TERRE

PARTIES:
Complainant: DOROTHY B. TERRE
Respondent: ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

FACTS:
On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent
Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with “grossly immoral conduct,”
consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman
other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained
subsisting No judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration
obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with
complainant.

Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy by

complainant. Dorothy Terre was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her
first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre succesfully convinced complainant
that her marriage was void ab initio and they are free to contract marriage. In
their marriage license, despite her objection, he wrote “single” as her status.
After getting the complainant pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and
subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina Malicdem believing again
that her previous marriage was also void ab initio.

ISSUE:
(1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent
marriage

HELD:
Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a
spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant’s
evidence as to the basic fact which underscores that bad faith of respondent
Terre. In the second place, the pretended defense is the same argument by
which he inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage or Merlito
A. Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being
allegedly first cousins to each other), she was free to contract a second
marriage with the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew
or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case
law of the supreme Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether
a person is legally free to contract a second marriage , a judicial declaration
that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential.

DELOS REYES VS AZNAR

FACTS:

Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern

University in which respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the College of
Medicine. Complainant was compelled to go to Manila with respondent for three
days where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the threat of
respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful desires, she would flunk in all
her subjects and she would never become a medical intern. After due
investigation, the Solicitor General found the respondent guilty of gross immoral
conduct and recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for
having gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a
married man ,with children, a rich man and is not practicing his profession before
the court, he should merely be suspended from the practice of law for not less
than three (3) years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.

HELD: NO.

The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession
as a lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral character.
Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138,
Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission
thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle
one to continue in the practice of law.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the
grounds for disbarment or suspension from his office as attorney, among others,
by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion
of the good and respectable members of the community.

In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have

taken advantage of his position in asking complainant to go with him under the
threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.

Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

ROYONG VS OBLENA

FACTS:
• Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston Oblena, a
member of the bar and bench, with rape. The Solicitor General immediately
conducted an investigation and found out that there was no rape, the carnal
knowledge between complainant and respondent seems to be consensual sex.
• In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that even if
respondent did not commit the alleged rape, nevertheless, he was guilty of
other misconduct. The Solicitor General made another complaint charging the
respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to
the bar that he is a person of good moral character, of living adulterously with
Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the 18 year old
Josefina Royong. Thus rendering him unfit to practice law, praying that this Court
render judgment ordering the permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer
and judge.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina Royong and the
adulterous cohabitation of respondent with Briccia Angeles warrants
disbarment.

HELD:
Ariston Oblena was disbarred.

RATIO:
The continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good
moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the
practice of law for one who has been admitted, and its loss requires suspension
or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for
disbarment.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly
bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of
the privileges of a lawyer.
Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
have proven in this case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may
justify positive action by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble
profession of the law.
As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice
law is required to show good moral character, or what he really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of
him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is
known.
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he
applied for admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles,
and the fact that people who knew him sqemed to have acuuiesced to his
utatus, did noq render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment
that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to
remain a member of the bar.LAGUITAN VS TINIO
CORDOVA VS CORDOVA
179 SCRA 680 – Legal Ethics – Moral Delinquency
In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with
two children, left his wife and children to cohabit with another married woman.
In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a reconciliation where Cordova promised
to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still continued to cheat on her wife
as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse, he took one
of his children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova.
Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place because
neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the
Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and her husband has reconciled.
The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit her evidence ex parte, merely
recommended the reprimand and admonishment of Cordova.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he
has been morally reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him
and his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the bar, one requirement is that
he possesses good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good
standing. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar
to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted
moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes “a
mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage” such was the case in the
case at bar.

ORBE VS ADAZA

428 SCRA 567 – Legal Ethics – Gross Misconduct – What “Conduct” Means
In November 1996, Attorney Henry Adaza went to Priscilla Orbe to borrow P60k.
Orbe loaned Adaza the said amount. As security, Adaza issued Orbe two checks
to cover the loan plus interest. The checks however bounced (the second check
was even post dated by Adaza to bear the date January 24, 1996- many months
before November 1996 when the loan was made). Subsequently, because of
Adaza’s failure to pay despite notices and demand from Orbe, the latter filed a
complaint for grave misconduct against Adaza. Orbe alleged that Adaza is unfit
to be a member of the bar. Eventually, the case was referred to the respective
Integrated Bar of Philippines chapter. Despite notices, Adaza failed to appear in
any of the proceedings. The IBP chapter then recommended Adaza’s suspension
for one year.
ISSUE: Whether or not Adaza should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. Adaza’s issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to
comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years (from SC’s date of decision
[2004]) is appalling. The Supreme Court also elucidated on the following:
A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an attorney
for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office. The word “conduct” used in
the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance
of the lawyer’s professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although
not connected with his professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon
him. The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not
limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty,
of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity. Such misdeed puts his moral
fiber, as well as his fitness to continue in the advocacy of law, in serious doubt.

MECARAL VS VELASQUEZ

A lawyer who behaves in a scandalous manner to the discredit of

the legal profession may be disbarred. This is what happened to Atty. Dino in this
case.

In 2002, Dino hired Rica as his secretary. Eventually she became his lover and
common law wife. Five years later or in October 2007, Dino brought Rica to the
quarters of a religious cult which he heads located at the upper mountains of
their province. Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce in
November and December 2007, prompting Rica to return home to her town.

When Dino learned about this, he was furious and brought Rica back to the
cult’s quarters in the mountains, where, on his instructions, his followers tortured,
brainwashed and injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on
December 24, 2007, the members of the group tied her spread eagled to a bed.
She was guarded 24 hours a day by women members led by Tita who fed her
with stale food.

When Rica’s mother received information about her plight, she sought the help
of the Provincial Social Welfare Department which immediately dispatched two
women volunteers to rescue Rica. The religious group however refused to
release her without the instruction of Dino. Thus they asked for assistance of
three police officers who responded and rescued Rica, reuniting mother and
daughter.
Subsequently, Rica charged Atty. Dino before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline with gross misconduct and gross
immorality. Additionally Rica charged Atty. Dino with bigamy when she learned
that he was first married to Sheila on April 27, 1990 in Quezon City and then got
married again on August 2, 1996 to Lani despite the subsistence of the first
marriage to Sheila as shown by the Marriage Certificates and the Certifications
from the National Statistics Office which she was able to obtain. On complaint
of Rica, an Information for serious illegal detention was also filed in court against
Atty. Dino and Tita, the women member of the cult.

Atty. Dino did not file any answer to Rica’s administrative complaint. Nor did he
appear on the scheduled mandatory conference. So on September 29, 2008,
the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Dino’s acts of converting his
secretary as his mistress and contracting two marriages are grossly immoral
“which no civilized society in this world can countenance”; while the
subsequent detention and torture of Rica is gross misconduct which “only a
beast may be able to do”. So he recommended the disbarment of Atty. Dino for
violating Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that
a lawyer shall uphold the constitution and obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes”. This was approved by the IBP
Board of Governors. Was the IBP correct?

Yes. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon
those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer’s moral
character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished
profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet his charges squarely and
present evidence that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
Atty. Dino has not discharged this burden.

Aside from violating Canon I, he also violated his Lawyer’s Oath that he will
“support the Constitution and obey the laws”; as well as Rule 7.03, Canon 7
mandating that a “lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in private or public life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of his profession.

By engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which
constitutes gross misconduct, Atty Dino has ceased to possess the qualifications
of a lawyer. He should be and is hereby disbarred and his name ordered
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys (Mecaral vs. Velasquez, AC 8392, June 28,
2010, 622 SCRA, 1)