TAPUCAR VS TAPUCAR

EN BANC[ A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998 ]

REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, RESPONDENT

Facts:

In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of
her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with a
certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous circumstances.

Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged four times for conduct unbecoming an
officer of the court. in Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980, respondent, at that time the
Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six months suspension without pay, while in Administrative Matter
Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI, which were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the separation
from service of respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

Yes.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing
his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. Exacted from him, as a member of the profession
charged with the responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense of what is right, are such positive qualities of
decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously described as “moral character.” To achieve
such end, every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus
improve not only the public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice.
Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006

Facts:

Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the
Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru falsification of public
document. A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty. Emmanual O.
Tansingco for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton. Atty.
Tansingco in his complaint stated that he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr.
Stier, an owner and long-time resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S.
Citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the
name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,
despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the
Code. Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed
disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant’s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he
refused to act witness in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the
court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation and for which the latter, through
Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of Discipline recommended suspension from the practice of
law for two years and cancellation of his commission as Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with
modification, the Report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six months. The
report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?

Ruling:

Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that a lawyer should
not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to
uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an
act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus,
he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law
against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such
an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such, respondent is being suspended
for six (6) months.
VELEZ vs. ATTY. DE VERA

Facts: Complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez moved for the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent Atty. Leonard
de Vera based on the following grounds:

1) Atty. De Veras alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered against him by the State
Bar of California.

2) That the respondent, in appropriating for his own benefit funds due his client, was found to have performed an
act constituting moral turpitude by the Hearing Referee Bill Dozier, Hearing Department – San Francisco, State Bar
of California. Complainant alleged that the respondent was then forced to resign or surrender his license to practice
law in the said state in order to evade the recommended 3 year suspension.

Atty. De Vera stated in his reply that the issues raised in above-mentioned Complaint were the very issues raised in
an earlier administrative case filed by the same complainant against him. In fact, according to him, the said issues
were already extensively discussed and categorically ruled upon by the SC in its Decision in Dec. 11, 2005 (In Re:
Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera). He prayed that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed
following the principle of res judicata.

Complainant maintained that there is substantial evidence showing respondent's moral baseness, vileness and
depravity, which could be used as a basis for his disbarment. Complainant stressed that the respondent never
denied that he used his client's money. Complainant argued that the respondent failed to present evidence that the
SC of California accepted the latter's resignation and even if such was accepted, complainant posited that this
should not absolve the respondent from liability. Moreover, complainant added that the principle of res judicata
would not apply in the case at bar. He asserted that the first administrative case filed against the respondent was
one for his disqualification.

Issue: W/N ATTY. LEONARD S. DEVERA committed malpractice which amounted to moral turpitude in the State Bar
of California and should such be an applicable basis for a disbarment in the Philippines

Held: Yes, there is substantial evidence of malpractice by Atty. De Vera. SC suspended him for 2 years.

Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court states:

Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, 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 wilful
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.

Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's (Julius Willis) allegation in the latter's memorandum that he (de Vera)
received US$12,000.00 intended for his client and that he deposited said amount in his personal account and not in
a separate trust account and that, finally, he spent the amount for personal purposes. Atty. De Vera insists that
Julius’ father authorized him to use the money, and has repayed the full amount even before the administrative
case was filed against him. However, aside from these self-serving statements, the SC cannot find anywhere in the
records of this case proof that indeed Atty. de Vera was duly authorized to use the funds of his client.

Atty. de Vera cannot rely on the statement made by the hearing officer that the elder Willis had indeed testified that
he "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days" was not so much an acknowledgment of consent to the
use by Atty. de Vera of his client's funds as it was an acceptance of the probability that Atty. de Vera might, indeed,
use his client's funds, which by itself did not speak well of the character of Atty. de Vera or the way such character
was perceived.

CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME TO HIS
POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.

Atty. De Vera’s actions caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. For, it
cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the
profession betrays their trust and confidence.

LINSANGAN v. ATTY. TOLENTINO – AC. No. 6672 – September 4, 2009

FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law
Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer
legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To
induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in
exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondent’s" calling card.

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling
card.

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation.

The CBD found that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 and
other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting
cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would
merit a heavier penalty.

ISSUE: WON the IBP erred in ruling that respondent violated Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and therefore should be reprimanded
HELD: No. The SC affirmed the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but modified the
recommended penalty. The complaint is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainant’s
professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of
the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.

Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill
is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to
efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called.

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:

RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause.

This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry
and champerty.

Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of
the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced
fees for his services. Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice. He
cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he
has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic notes,
cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may
not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire
devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s
case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.
Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his
duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple
professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: (a) lawyer’s name; (b) name of the law firm with
which he is connected; (c) address; (d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced.

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used to entice clients
(who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money
was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the
legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared
to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling
cards.

Respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year. He is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

ROSARIO T. MECARAL, VSATTY. DANILO S.VELASQUEZ,

A.C. No. 8392

PER CURIAM:

Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD)[1] with Gross Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct which she
detailed in her Position Paper[2] as follows:

After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and common-law wife. In October 2007,
respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious
group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her
daily, his visits became scarce in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval, Biliran.
Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, 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. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day
by the women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo.

Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received information that she was weak, pale and walking
barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Caibiran, sought the help of the Provincial Social Welfare
Department which immediately dispatched two women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to
release her, however, without the instruction of respondent. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and PO1 Arnel S.
Robedillo (PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and reunite her with her mother.

Hence, the present disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant charges respondent with
bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage
to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.

Despite respondents receipt of the February 22, 2008 Order[10] of the Director for Bar Discipline for him to submit
his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and his expressed intent to properly make [his] defense in a verified
pleading,[11] he did not file any Answer.

Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III of the CBD, in his Report and Recommendation[12] dated
September 29, 2008, found that:respondents acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two
marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The
subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do.
Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.

Issue: WON Atty Danilo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: 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.[15] When a lawyers
moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it
behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and
this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.[16]

Aside then from the IBPs finding that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he also
violated the Lawyers Oath reading:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I
recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God, (underscoring supplied),
and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the same Code reading:

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.

In the long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalty for grossly immoral conduct of
a lawyer like the case at bar. In the instant case, not only did the respondent commit bigamy for contracting
marriages with Shirley Yunzal in 1990 and Leny Azur in 1996, but the respondent also made his secretary
(complainant) his mistress and subsequently, tortured her to the point of death. All these circumstances showed the
moral fiber respondent is made of, which [leave] the undersigned with no choice but to recommend the disbarment
of Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez.[13]

Also, As reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution in the criminal complaint (serious illegal detention ) against
respondent, his therein co-respondent Bernardita Tadeo corroborated the testimonies of complainants witnesses,
and that the allegations against him remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges against him by clearly
preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.[20]

In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct,
respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer.[21]

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the
Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines.

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON

FACTS: Sometime in December 2001, at around midnight, while Ventura was sleeping in the maid’s room at
respondent’s house when respondent entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her
breast, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and found blood stain in her panty.
Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her to an old shanty where he sexually abused her.
Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he
would kill her and her mother.

In her Supplemental-Complaint, complainant averred that respondent allowed her to sleep in his house after her
mother agreed to let her stay there while she studied at the Agusan National High School. She further stated that on
the night she was sexually abused, she was awakened when respondent went on top of her. She struggled to free
herself and shouted, but respondent covered her mouth and nobody could hear as nobody was in the house.
Complainant also claimed that respondent forced her to ride a multi-cab. When they arrived at his poultry farm in
Alegria, respondent dragged her to a dilapidated shack. She resisted his advances but her efforts proved futile.
The complainant and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor and executed their respective Affidavits of
Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened between respondent and her in March 2002 was based on
mutual understanding. Thus, she was withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as well
as the one she filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case against respondent
was dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of Disbarment is proper

RULING: The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members
of the bar to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any
errant behavior on the part of a lawyer may be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, which tends to show said
lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or
disbarment.

From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we find that
respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross
immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant
but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed
and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests
his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he
procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard
for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession. Respondent has violated the trust and
confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under respondent’s care.
Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is
of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such
conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law.

The fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during the pendency of this case is of no moment.
Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings in view of the public
service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A
case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but
is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and
the courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of
the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his
oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

BANSIG VS CELERA

EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014 ]

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of
marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another marriage
with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage Bansig
stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal existence when he
contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by
any lawful authority.

Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting,
constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue
his membership in the Bar.

Issue:

whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice

Ruling:

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of respondent are
competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a
member of the Bar

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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 should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He
made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second
marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

AREOLA VS MENDOZA

FIRST DIVISION [ A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014

Facts:

Areola alleged that during Prisoners’ Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all detainees
with pending cases before the Regional Trial Court where she was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola
claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the following during her speech:

“O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang-areglo ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto
ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng
kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga
detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon.”

Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all detainees should prepare and furnish
her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so that she may know the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give
her the necessary payment for their transcript of stenographic notes.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct or the code professional responsibility

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that
their motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that
she told her clients “Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.” Atty.
Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and
crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.
 As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her
clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule
1.02 that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.”