Reddi vs. Sebrio Jr.
; Dishonesty violations of the lawyer’s oath and numerous provisions of the Code
6/24/2013
A.C. No. 7027 January 30, 2009
Facts:
Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian descent
and a practicing endodontist [dentist] in New York, seeks the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. for allegedly
deceiving her into giving him a total of US $ 3,000,000 for the
purpose of, among other things, purchasing several real estate
properties for resale.
Inspired by the charitable works of her parents, complainant
decided to build a hospital in the Philippines. However she needed
more revenue to finance the said undertaking. Through the advice of
her assistant Immaculada Luistro, complainant ventured into the real
estate in the Philippines. It through this business hat he came to
know and ask for legal advice from respondent.
Respondent advised that complainant cannot own real estate in
the Philippines since she is an alien, thus the remedy is to put up a
corporation, and this corporation will be the one who will acquire the
land. Three corporations then were created. Through the instance of
respondent and financed by complainants, several lots were
purchased. However, complainant was unaware that the transactions
[sale of several lands] she had entered into were all bogus, since the
sellers were not the real owners of the land. This fact was known to
the respondent since he is the one who arranged the transactions.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty, hence violating
the Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of respondent
[result of the investigation was adopted by the Supreme Court]
found respondent to have committed fraudulent acts which constitute
of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He engaged in unlawful,
dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered properties for sale
to complainant on the misrepresentation that complainant was
dealing with the true owners thereof.
The court found that respondent’s dishonest and deceitful conduct
with respect to the intended transactions, real property acquisitions
which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established.
Explained the court, "to reiterate, by his own admission, respondent
received a total of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not
properly account for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried
out his fraudulent scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by
taking advantage of complainant’s naivete in the workings of the real
estate business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character
falls way, way short of the exacting standards required of him as a
member of the bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no
longer fit to remain as such.
The court in admonition reiterates that if the practice of law,
however, is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic
ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets
and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity
to them. The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much
greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning."
WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is
DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys. He is ORDERED TO RETURN to complainant the
amount of US$544,828.
 Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares, complainant, versus
Justice Onofre A. Villaluz (retired), respondent.
Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997
Facts:
Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the
presiding judge in Pasay City while respondent Onofre A.
Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult at
the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.
Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first
husband, Primitivo Mijares. She obtained a decree declaring
her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16 years.
Thus, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding on
January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim Verano.
They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the
latter, who was at that time the Presiding Judge of the
Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a murder case
involving the death of the son of Mijares.
During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that
respondent was having an illicit affair with another woman.
Respondent denied such rather he uttered harsh words to the
complainant judge. As a result, they lived separately and did
not get in touch with one another and the respondent did not
bother to apologize for what happened.
Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that
respondent married Lydia Geraldez. Complainant then filed a
complaint against respondent for disbarment for the latter
immorally and bigamously entered into a second marriage while
having a subsisting marriage and distorted the truth by stating
his civil status as single.
In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the
complainant judge was a “sham marriage”; that he voluntarily
signed the marriage contract to help her in the administrative
case for immorality filed against her by her legal researcher.
Likewise, he maintained that when he contracted his marriage
with complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with his first wife
because the decision declaring the annulment of such marriage
had not yet become final and executory or published.
Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct and later on affirmed by the Court.
Issue:
a. Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid
b. Whether or not the marriage of complainant and respondent
was a sham marriage
Ruling:
a. Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal
requisites of a valid marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the
Family Code were satisfied and complied. Given
the circumstance that he was facing criminal case for bigamy
and assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment in civil
case declaring the annulment of marriage between respondent
and the first wife had not attained complete finality, the marriage
between complainant and respondent is not void but only
voidable.
b. As to the issue that it was a “sham” marriage is too incredible
to deserve serious consideration. Thus, former Justice Onofre
Villaluz is found guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility; he is hereby suspended
from practice of law for two years with the specific warning.
De Mijares v.Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1
FACTS: Priscilla de Mijares and Justice Onofre Villaluz were
married despite the pendency of Justice Villaluz’ former
marriage in court. Few days after the marriage, De Mijares and
Villaluz had a heated fight which led to exchange of offending
remarks. Villaluz called the complainant a nagger and told her
to get the marriage contract and have it burned. Such
unbearable utterances of respondent left complainant no choice
but to leave in haste the place of their would-be honeymoon.
Since then, the complainant and respondent have been living
separately because as complainant rationalized, contrary to her
expectation respondent never got in touch with her and did not
even bother to apologize for what happened. Several months
after, she learned that respondent married a certain Lydia
Geraldez. Thus, the basis of this complaint.
ISSUE: WON Ret. Justice Onofre A. Villaluz be suspended from
his practice of law.
HELD: Citing Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Supreme Court found the respondent
engaging in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceiful conduct
and recommends SUSPENSION with the specific WARNING
that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit
the same or a similar offense hereafter.
Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the
respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as
messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet
you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went
home very late at night or early in the morning of the following
day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked
her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s
house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and
Respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went
uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her and
the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal
house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant
later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car
and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New
Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001,
Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when
his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with
respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the

reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.

Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the

Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use
of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral
turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of
Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling,
or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to
uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala
DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath
the case diary Held:

ABOUT ASK SUBMIT The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L.
Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, was dismissed.
Ui vs. Bonifacio (Legal Ethics)
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion
Ui vs. Bonifacio that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal
affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000 Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was
a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
Facts: connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of
Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
carrying out an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is,
Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a complaint it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
for disbarment was filed by complainant against respondent so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly,
for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s
husband. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with
Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and
that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s
true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent
averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.

Issue:

Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral

manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice
of law.
 Saburnido vs. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 , September 26, 2001 primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; A lawyer may be disciplined for any public and the legal profession.
conduct, in his professional or private capacity, that renders him
unfit to continue to be an officer of the court.—A lawyer may be
disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity,
that renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all
lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession. Specifically, in Rule 7.03, the Code provides: 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.

Same; Same; A lawyer’s act of filing multiple complaints against the

complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal
profession.—Clearly, respondent’s act of filing multiple complaints
against herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member
of the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly
undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or another individual, as
complainants were instrumental in respondent’s dismissal from the
judiciary. We see in respondent’s tenacity in pursuing several cases
against complainants not the persistence of one who has been
grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact
revenge.

Same; Same; Disbarment; The supreme penalty of disbarment is

meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.—
Complainants ask that respondent be disbarred. However, we find
that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline
respondent. The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While we will not
hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also
not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the
desired end. In this case, we find suspension to be a sufficient
sanction against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not
delino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco
G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)
Legal Ethics : Definition
Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an
accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On
October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced
discharging his duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his
position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and
also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On
November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as
counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service
which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari
proceeding.
Issue:
Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the
motion of the petitioner is a grave abuse of discretion?
Holding:
No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of
fidelity to the duty rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have
known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The
legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a
mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to
aid in the performance of the administration of justice. The fact that
such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the
lawyer's zeal.
Ratio:
“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office
are Judges, or other officials or employees of the superior courts or
the office of the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules
of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. The
lawyer involved not being among them, remained as counsel of
record since he did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-
appellant’s counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds. Nor
was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new
counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R.
Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an
indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de
officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of an accused in a
criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of
the highest importance, and there can be no fair hearing with due
process of law unless he is fully informed of his rights in this regard
and given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. Holgado, L-2809,
March 22, 1950)
The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide
the accused with a counsel de officio for such action as it may deem
fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal
vs. Judge Muñoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985]
16
AUG
Ponente: AQUINO, J.
FACTS:
[R]espondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker &
McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked a
certain Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney
Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of
Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the
lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your
purpose in using the letterhead of another law office.” Not having
received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with
members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents,
aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the
firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker
& McKenzie.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm, could practice
law in the Philippines.
HELD:
NO. Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm
name Baker & McKenzie.
RATIO:
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
[R]espondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constituted a
representation that being associated with the firm they could “render
legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment”.
This was unethical because Baker & McKenzie was not authorized to
practice law here.
FACTS: Atty. Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other
lawyers from practicing law under the name Baker and McKenzie, a
law firm organized in Illinois. In 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres
used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie which contains the names
of the ten lawyers asking Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares
of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty.
Dacanay replied denying any liability of Clurman and asking the
lawyer his purpose of using the letterhead of another law office.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents should enjoin from practising
law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
HELD: YES. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with
the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing,
is entitled to practice law.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a Collantes v. Renomeron
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render
legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" A.C. No. 3056. AUgust 16, 1991.
which the Court finds unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practise law here.
Per curiam

WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law

under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.
FACTS:

Complainant, house counsel for V&G, filed a disbarment complaint

against Atty. Vincent Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban
City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regards to the
application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma. Deeds of
Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

Yes. The acts of dishonesty and oppression which respondent

committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to
practice the high and noble calling of the law.
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
case filed by Atty. Collantes, house counsel for V& G Better Homes government service in the discharge of official tasks.
Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds
of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to
the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of
Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its
subdivision. Held: (1) Yes, a lawyer’s misconduct as a public official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath
imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and its violation
is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent action.
suspended the registration of the documents with certain “special
conditions” between them, which was that V&G should provide him
with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00
as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent’s
Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives. (2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6).
The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility),
or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or interest” (Rule
Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the 1.03).
documents. He himself elevated the question on the registrability of
the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The
Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the
documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the
respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from
the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not
adverted in his previous denial.

Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be

disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as a public official, and
acts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed
against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission
on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross
misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s
Oath for having used her public office to secure financial
spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the
CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case are
high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn
Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4,
1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was
OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our
Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches,
Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the facilitation
of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded
from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of
P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her
application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Rocella
G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation
of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded
from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount
which was subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and
initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her
application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED.
Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well
as the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable
for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the
Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with
applications or requests pending before her office are
violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of
Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interests. Promotion
of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval
of his office or which may be affected by the functions of
his office. Respondent’s conduct in office falls short of the
integrity and good moral character required from all
lawyers, specially from one occupying a high public office.
For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the
trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she
must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is
a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule
1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for
acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC,
Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves
not just the penalty of three years’ suspension from
membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright
disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of
attorneys upon finality of this decision.