[Type here]
CHAPTER 3: DUTIES TO SOCITY
1. Lee v Tambago
2. Dimatulac v Villon
3. People v Madera
Elino Bana was sleeping on his bed when he was
shot by Madera. Behind Mader were 2 other people.
Before Bana died, he identified Madera as his
shooter. 2 of Bana’s sons who were in the house
when it happened, identified Madera as one of the
shooters as well as the 2 other men behind him. The
courts convicted the 3 of them for murder. The
Solicitor General recommended the conviction of
Madera, but he also recommended the acquittal of
the other 2 men.
Issue: WON the conviction is correct.
Ruling: No. Although, Madera’s guilt was proven
beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the 2 men
were not even established & did not show that they
shared the same criminal intent as Madera.
“The courts finest hour is not when he wins his case
with the conviction of the accused but when he
pleads not for the conviction of the accused, but for
his acquittal. For indeed, his noble task is to
prosecute only the guilty and protect the innocent.”
4. Tan v Gallardo
The SolGen was persuaded that the presiding judge
of a subsequent criminal case was biased and
prejudiced in his decisions and sought to remand the
case to the RTC for proper judgement. The private
prosecutors contend that they have the right to
intervene independently of the SolGen and to adopt
a stand in contravention with that of the latter.
Issue: WON private prosectors cannot intervene
independently of and take position inconsistent with
that of the SolGen.
Ruling: The role of the private prosecutors, upon the
other hand, is to represent the offended parts, with
respect to the civil action for the recovery of the civil
liability arising from the offense. Thus, an offended
party may intervene in the proceedings, personally
or by attorney. The only exception to this is when
the offended party waives his right to civil action or
expressly reserves his right to institute it after the
termination of the case. And in any event, whether
an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a
criminal action, his intervention must always be
subject to the direction and control of the
prosecuting official. Therefore, that since the
Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the
State or the People of the Philippines the interest of
the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the
State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand
inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General, for
that would be tantamount to giving the latter the
direction and control of the criminal proceedings,
contrary to the provisions of law and the settled
rules on the matter.
5. PCGG v Sandiganbayan
GenBank was declared insolvent and was ordered to
liquidate his assets by Central Bank. At a public
bidding, Lucio Tan bought GenBank and
subsequently, former SolGen Mendoza filed a
petition praying for assistance & supervision of the
court in GenBank’s liquidation. Corazon Aquino
established Presidential Comission on Good
Governance to recover ill-gotten wealth of Pres.
Marcos. PCGG filed a writ of sequestration against
Lucio Tan for taking advantage of their close
relationship with Marcos. PCGG filed a motion
disqualifying Mendoza as counsel for the
respondents alleging that Mendoza actively
intervened in the liquidatin of GenBank and invoked
rule 6.03 of the CPR that “Former Government
Lawyers are prohibited from accepting
engagement/employement in connection w any
matter in wc he intervened while in said service”
Issue: WON 6.03 applies to Mendoza
Ruling: No. The matter of the act of atty Mendoza as
SolGen in advising Central Bank on how to proceed
with GenBank’s liquidation is not the same matter
contemplated by Rule 6.03. ABA Formal Opinion
stressed that Atty Mendoza’s act did not fall within
the scope of the term matter. He had nothing to do
with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate
GenBank and did not even participate in the sale of
the said bank.
6. Santos v Arrojado
Santos sought the disbarment of atty Arrojado for
having committed malpractive when he acquired,
through his son, an interest in the property subject
to an unlawful detainer case in which he participated
in, in the exercise of his profession.
Issue: WON Atty Arrojado violated his ethical duties
by acquiring property subject of litigation
Ruling: No. Respondent Lawyer was not the
purchaser of the property in litigation, but it was his
son. The Civil Code only covers justices, judges,
prosecuting attys, clerks of courts, other officers and
employees connected with the administration of
justice and lawyers, it cannot be stretched out
include relatives of lawyers. Furthermore, there is no
evidence to show that respondent had used his son
as conduit to gain the property in question.
[Type here]
7. Malecdan v Baldo
8. Gubaton v Amador
Former Asst. Prosecutor Amador was a filed a
complaint for disbarment on the ground of gross
immoral conduct for having an illicit affair with a
married woman whose husband is in the USA.
Information was supplied by the wife’s househelper,
the secretary of her dental clinic, and affidavits
executed by the Chief of Baranagay Public Safety and
an Employee of the BIR of their affair. The affair was
also evidenced by love letters. The complainant also
saw them kissing but when he attempted to confront
them, respondent ran away.
Issue: WON grounds exist to hold respondent
administratively liable
Ruling: Yes, with modifications to the penalty
imposed. Extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded
as offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family
and the community. It blemishes their ethics and
morality. Usual recourse is suspension, if not
disbarment because possession of good moral
character is both a condition and precendent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the
bar and retain memebership in the legal profession.
Proof needed in administrative cases is substantial
evidence- amount of relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds might
conceivably opine otherwise.
9. Ortigas Plaza Devt Corp v Tumulak
10. Paras v Paras
11. Cruz v Lim
12. Aca v Salvado
A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty
Salvado for Violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03. Complainant alleged that the
respondent was engaged in a lending business and
enticed him to invest in it with a guarantee of high
interest rates per month, and was assured of a
profitable investment. Complainant ended up
investing. Respondent then issued several post
dated checks, but when complainant claimed them
from the bank he found out that the checks were
dishonored as these were drawn from insufficient
funds or a closed account. Complainant initially
made written and verbal demands upon the debtor,
but as time went by respondent began to avoid him.
Complainant even when to his house to deliver the
letters but were informed by the housekeeper that
he already transferred to the province.
Ruling: When he isissued the worthless checks, he
discredited the legal profession and created the
public impression that laws were mere tools of
convenience that could be used, bended and abused
to satisfy personal whims and desires.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is
the act of making and issuing a worthless check.
Respondent also deceivingly attempted to evade
payment of his obligations. Lack of moral character.
13. Nulada v Paulma
A complaint for disbarment was filed against Paulma
for dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Complainant alleged that the
respondent issued him a check as payment of the
latter’s debt. When he presented the check, it was
dishonoted due to insufficient funds. Respondent
failed to make good the amount of the check despite
notice of dishonor and repeated demands,
prompting the complainant to file a criminal case for
BP 22. After due process, the respondent was found
guilty.
Issue: WON respondent should be administratively
disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
Ruling: Yes. The issuance of worthless checks in
violation of BP 22 indicated a lawyer’s unfitness for
the trust and confidence reposed on his, shows his
lack of personal honestly and good moral character.
14. Bacatan v Dadula
A case of libel and a case of falsification were raffled
to complainant for preliminary investigation.
Complainant found probable cause for libel and
recommended its filing in court, while the complaint
for falsification was recommended for dismissal for
lack of probable cause. Both recommendations were
approved by the City Prosecutor. Respondent
contends that the complainant was bias against her
client and concluded that the prosecutor must have
been bribed. As a defense, the complainant claims
that she merely followed the procedure in resolving
cases. Upon investigation, IBP found that respondent
failed to abide by the bounds of courtesy, fairness
and candor (Canon 8). She had overstepped the
bounds of fair plan, and is guilty of misconduct for
her reckless allegations. The Comissioner, however,
observed that the respondent was comparatively a
new member for the profession and reminded her to
be more circumspect in her words of choice and
recommended that she be reprimanded.
Ruling: Concurs with the IBP. Respondent violated
Canon 8 of the CPR. Unprofessional conduct.
15. Mercullo v Ramon
16. Cobalt Resources Inc v Aguado
17. Advincula v Advincula
[Type here]
CHAPTER 4: DUTIES TO THE LEGAL
PROFESSION
18. Gabutan v Amador
19. Fabugais v Faundo
A complaint was filed against Faundo for gross
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of lawyer for
having allegedly engaged in illicit and immoral
relations with the wife of the complainant. Their
illicit affair was retold by the 10 year old daughter of
the complainant who claims that she, her mother
and 2 ates stayed in a house that belonged to the
respondent lawyer, who she saw sleeping in the
same bed as her and embracing her while they were
sleeping. She further recalled that respondent
lawyer suddenly entered the room clad only in a
towel and told her to step outside the room so that
they could be alone. Because of these events, the
complainant filed a declaration for nullity of
marriage with prayer for custory of their minor child.
Respondent lawyer claimed that he was incapable of
committing misconducted because he is a good
father to his children, because he is a respected civic
leader and because he has never been the subject of
a complaint with the police and claims that the case
was only filed for no other reason than to harass
him.
Ruling: Although the charge of immorality
(adulterous relationship) was not factually
established, certain behavior of the respondent does
not escape notice of the court.
20. Arciga v Maniwag
Argica asked for the disbarment of Maniwag for
grossly immoral conduct because he refused to fulfill
his promise of marriage to her. They were both
lovers who had repeated acts of cohabitation. When
Maniwag transferred to Davao, Arciga stayed in
Cebu. She later found out that she was pregnant
with his son, and both of them went to her parents
where Maniwag convinced her father to have the
church wedding deferred until he passed the bar
exams. They continued sending each other love
letters, and he kept reassuring her of his promist to
marry her. When Maniwag passed the Bar, he
stopped corresponding with her. When she visited
him in Davao, she found out that he has already
married another woman.
Ruling: The SolGen recommends the dismissal of the
case because his misbehavior is not glaringly
scandalous and does not warrant his disbarment.
Respondent’s refusal to marry the complainant was
not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment. Immoral Conduct- that conduct which is
wilfull, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.
21. Santiago v Santiago
A case for disbarment was filed against city legal
officers for deceit, gross misconduct and for violating
their oaths as members of the bar. The complainant
was granted a sick leave of absence from Jan-Dec.
On Feb, she received a memorandum from the
mayor which cancelled all leaves of absences of city
officials and employees, but paid no heed to such
memorandum. She received another memorandum,
giving her addtl 5 days to report, but replied with a
handwritten note to ask for 10 days. However she
did not return, and in fact tendered her resignation.
Subsequently,the Mayor also terminated her
employment written in a resolution accusing her of
being an incorrigible employee, for neglecting her
duty and for insubordination. Complainant filed this
present case claiming that the respondent made
deceitful statements in said resolution.
Ruling: No merit in the complaint. The resolution of
the IBP is merely recommendatory.
IBP Report: Respondents were not guilty of
misconduct as their actions neither indicated moral
depravity nor did it affect their qualifications as
lawyers. They also did not violate their oaths as
members of the bar (to do no falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any) because the falsehood
contemplated in the atty’s oath is one that is
intentional or committed with malice.
22. Yap v Buri
Yap was the vendor in a contract of sale of a condo
unit, while Buri was the vendee. Buri made an offer
to purchase the property at 1.2M. 200k remains
unpaid, which she insisted she would pay in monthly
installments. Becaue Yap trusted her, she gave her
the full and immediate possession of the condo unit.
When Yap finally asked for the balance, Buri said she
would cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started
threatening her thru txt messages and later filed an
estafa case, alleging that Yap failed to return the
money. When the courts asked for her answer, she
failed to comply. The IBR recommended her
suspension.
Ruling: No sufficient reason to overturn the
recommendation of the IBR. Instead of paying Yap
the remaining balance, she opted to threaten her
and file a criminal case against her as a strategy of
intimidation. She took advantage of her knowledge
of the law and clearly resorted to threats and
intimidation in order to get away with what she
wanted, constituting a gross violation of professional
[Type here]
ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession.
23. Gonzales v Santos
A complaint was filed against Atty Santos for
dishonesty and abuse of trust and confidence of his
client. Complainant bought a parcel of land, and
appointed her sister to act as her representative in
matters concerning the property. Atty Santos was
hired to register the title and to commence an
ejectment suit against the occupants of the
property. He was paid, and he signed the receipts
acknowledging such. When a new title was issued
under the complainant’s name, it was never
surrendered to her. She later found out that the
property has been mortgaged to the respondent’s
relative. Moreover, she found out that respondent
never filed an ejectment case against the occupants
of her property.
Ruling: The IBR found out that the respondent
participated in the fraudulent transaction. He failed
in his duty to hold his client’s property in trust. He
should have been more prudent in ensuring that the
title would be safely delivered to her.
24. Lim v Rivera
Complaint against Rivera for defrauding the
complainant by issuing worthless checks as
guarantee for the payment of respondent’s loan.
The respondent borrowed from the complainant
money, which he immediately needed. Complainant
did not think twice in issuing in his favor a check. The
respondent issued a guarantee check to ensure
payment of the loan. However, when complainant
deposited such checks it was dishonored for the
reason account closed. Since then, the respondent
completely avoided the complainant.
Issue: WON the respondent should be held
administratively liable for the issuance of a worthless
check
Ruling: The IBP found him administratively liable,
with the penalty of suspension for 1 year. The court
concurs with their recommendation. The
respondent’s act of issuing a worthless check was a
violation of Rule 1.01. It indicated a layer’s unfitness
for the trust and confidence reposed on him.
Deliberate failure to pay debts and issuance of
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct.
Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, the courts and their
clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations.
25. Palencia v Linsangan
26. Washington v Dicen
Complainant alleged that when she was about to
perform necessary repairs to her house, the police
arrived and she was suddenly arrested because Atty
Dicen, her uncle and first cousin, who had ordered
her to be arrested for trespassing even though she
was the lawful owner of the property. The
respondent denied such allegations and
furthermore, referred to her as a lunatic who was on
a crazy quest for revenge against him. And stated
several personal attacks against her.
Issue: WON respondent should be held
administratively liable for use of intemperate
language in his pleadings
Ruling: Concurs with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP. A lawyer’s arguments in
his pleadings should be graceful to both the court
and his opposing counsel. He should have refrained
from resorting to name-calling and personal attacks
in order to get his points across “Although a lawyer’s
language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful befitting the
dignity of the legal profession”
27. Ulep v Legal Clinic
28. Domingo v Revilla
Revilla was found guilty of comimitting fraud against
his. He now seeks reduction of his fine from 100k to
50k, justifying that he has been in financial
constraints since he was disbarred and that has been
suffering from chronic kidney disease that would
need dialysis treatment thrice every week. He also
claims that the disbarment cost him his only source
of livelihood and that he has acknowledge his ethical
sins and has been remorseful since then.
Ruling: In several administrative cases, the court has
refrained from imposing actual penalties in the
presence of mitigating factors. The court finds and
considers the justifications of the respondent
sufficient to warrant the reduction of the fine
imposed upon him. “Unemployment brings untold
hardships and sorrows on those dependent wage
earners.”
26. Re: Integration of the Bar
27. Re: 1989 Election of the Integrated Bar
28. Tabuzo v Gomos
29. Rico v Salutan
Complaint was filed against Atty Sulatan for
misleading the court and for contempt of court.
Rico’s relatives were plaintiffs in a civil case for
Forcible Entry. One of the defendants in that case
sued Rico for Unlawful Detainer covering the same
property, the MTCC ordered Rico to vacate the
premises. The sheriff excecuted a Return Service
[Type here]

stating that the writ could not executed since the

property subject of the case was different from the
lot which Rico was occupying. Thereafter, the same
defendant, thru her counsel Atty Sulatan, filed a Wirt
of Execution, which was denied 3x. On the 4th try, it
was granted and the courts issued a final notice to
vacate to Rico. The sheriff then led the demolition of
the house and other improvements of the property.
Rico filed an AC against Atty Sulatan, who denies the
charges arguing that he merely advocated for his
client’s cause and did the same within the bounds of
the law and the rules.
Ruling: the IBP recommended the dismissal of the
AC because it is without merit, and the court
concurs. Rico failed to prove deception on the
lawyer’s part. All Atty Sulatan did was to zealously
advocate for the cause of this client. An atty enjoys
the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges against him until the contrary is proved.
30. Malvar v Feir