1.
TALISIC v RINEN
DOCTRINE:
 Faithful observance and utmost respect of
the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
 The notarization of a document carries
considerable legal effect. Notarization of a
private document converts such document
into a public one, and renders it admissible
in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an
empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
public interest in a substantial degree.
 It must be stressed that "a notary public's
function should not be trivialized and a
notary public must discharge his powers and
duties which are impressed with public
interest, with accuracy and fidelity."
 "Notaries public must observe with utmost
care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties." Otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of
public instruments would be undermined.
FACTS:
 Talisic filed an administrative complaint
charging Atty. Rinen with falsification of an
Extra Judicial Partition with Sale transferring
a parcel of land owned by Talisic’s mother to
spouses Durante. He further claimed that his
mother died on May 1987, that it was only
after his father’s death that they knew of the
transfer. Lastly, he believed that his father’s
signature was authentic, however, his
signature and his siblings were forged, and
that even his name was erroneously
indicated on the deed as Wilfredo instead of
Wilberto.
 In his defense, Atty. Rinen denied the
allegations against him and explained that
he only knew about the transaction on April
1994 when the spouses approached him to
prepare and notarized the deed, and that
the deed contained his certification that at
the time of the document’s execution, no
notary public was available to expedite the
transaction.
 Investigating Commissioner’s:
o Report - although there was no
evidence of forgery, he was negligent
in not requiring a presentation of
document as proof of identity of the
parties. His negligence was further
shown in the inconsistencies of the
dates in the deed.
o Recommendation - the cancellation of
Atty. Rinen’s notarial commission and
his suspension from notarial practice
for 1year;
 IBP Board of Governor Ruling- adopted
the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendation.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Rinen was negligent in the
performance of his notarial practice?
RATIO: The Court agrees with the findings and
recommendations of the IBP.
"Faithful observance and utmost respect of
the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct." "The
notarization of a document carries considerable
legal effect. Notarization of a private document
converts such document into a public one, and
renders it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not
an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
public interest in a substantial degree. It must be
stressed that "a notary public's function should
not be trivialized and a notary public must
discharge his powers and duties which are
impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity."
In the present case, Atty. Rinen did not deny
his failure to personally verify the identity of all
parties who purportedly signed the subject
document and whom, as he claimed, appeared
before him. Such failure of Atty. Rinen justified
the recommendation presented by the IBP.
The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court
judge during the time that he administered the
oath for the subject deed did not relieve him of
compliance with the same standards and
obligations imposed upon other commissioned
notaries public. Thus, "notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties." Otherwise,
the confidence of the public in the integrity of
public instruments would be undermined.
HELD: WHEREFORE, as recommended by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Court
REVOKES the notarial commission which Atty.
Primo R. Rinen may presently have, and
DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as
a notary public for one year, effective
immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the future shall merit a
more severe sanction. He is DIRECTED to report
to this Court the date of his receipt of this
Resolution to enable it to determine when the
revocation of his notarial commission and his
disqualification from being commissioned as
notary public shall take effect.
2. ANG v GUPANA
DOCTRINE:
 A notary public's function should not be
trivialized and a notary public must
discharge his powers and duties which are
impressed with public interest, with accuracy
and fidelity. It devolves upon respondent to
act with due care and diligence in stamping
fiat on the questioned documents.
Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a
notary public resulted in undermining the
integrity of a notary public and in degrading
the function of notarization. Hence, he
should be liable for his infraction, not only as
a notary public but also as a lawyer.
FACTS:
 An affidavit-complaint was filed by Ang
against Atty. Gupana, alleging that the latter
directly participated in the commission of
forgeries and falsifications in the issuance of
a new TCT of Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4 on the
name of William, Antonio, Patricia, Lolita,
Gregorio and Fe. Such forgery was shown by
the Certification issued by the Office of the
Clerk of Court. Moreover, Ang claimed that
the Affidavit of Loss could not have been
executed by Candelaria who died 3 years
prior to its execution. Lastly, Atty. Gupana
made himself the attorney-in-fact of the new
TCT owners and executed a deed of sale
selling the subject lot to Lim Kim So
Mercantile Co. and that said sale was made
even if a civil case involving the said land
was pending.
 Atty. Gupana denied any wrongdoing and
argued that Ang is merely using the
administrative complaint to force the
defendants in a pending civil case to accede
to his wishes. Moreover, Ang admitted that
he is not an heir of the late Candelaria but
insisted on his claim for a share of said lot
being the son of the latter’s common-law
husband. Because of his admission, the
notices of lis pendens in the TCTs were
ordered cancelled making the land available
for disposition. Lastly, Ang knew that he is
going to lose in the Civil Case, that’s why he
resorted to the filing of this complaint.
 IBP Commission on Bar Discipline:
o Report - find Atty. Gupana
administratively liable. Atty Gupana
committed an unethical act when he
allowed himself to be an instrument in
the disposal of the subject lot despite his
knowledge that it is the subject of a
pending litigation.
o Recommendation - suspension from the
practice of law for 3 months.
 Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – additionally found that Atty.
Gupana delegated his notarial functions
to his clerical staff which must have
been the reason for the forged
signatures of the parties and the
erroneous entry in his notarial register.
o Recommendation – only reminded
Atty. Gupana to be more cautious in the
performance of his notarial duties.
 IBP Board of Governor Ruling – adopted
the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner but modified the penalty to
suspension from the practice of law for 1
year and revocation of respondent’s notarial
commission and disqualification from
reappointment as notary public for 2 years.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Gupana violated the Notarial
Law?
RULING: the Court agrees with the resolution of
the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent
administratively liable.
The Court finds that respondent did not act
unethically when he sold the property in dispute
as the sellers' attorney-in-fact because there was
no more notice of lis pendens annotated on the
particular lot sold. Likewise, the Court finds no
sufficient evidence to show that the Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Candelaria Magpayo
on April 17, 1989 was antedated.
However, the Notarial Law provides that the
party acknowledging must appear, among
others, before the notary public to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.
In this case, Atty. Gupana failed to require the
personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when
he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which
Candelaria allegedly executed. Hence, it is clear
that the jurat was made in violation of the
notarial law.
A notary public's function should not be
trivialized and a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties which are impressed with
public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. It
devolves upon respondent to act with due care
and diligence in stamping fiat on the questioned
documents. Respondent's failure to perform his
duty as a notary public resulted in undermining
the integrity of a notary public and in degrading
the function of notarization. Hence, he should be
liable for his infraction, not only as a notary
public but also as a lawyer.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public,
respondent is mandated to subscribe to the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such
duties being dictated by public policy impressed
with public interest. Respondent likewise
violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when delegated his
notarial functions to his staff.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James
Joseph Gupana is found administratively liable
for misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one year. Further, his notarial
commission, if any, is REVOKED and he is
disqualified from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two years, with a stern
warning that repetition of the same or similar
conduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
3. DIZON v CABUCANA
DOCTRINE:
 Section 1 of the Notarial Law provides the
requirement of affiant's personal appearance
before the Notary Public. As a notary public,
Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is
the same person executing it and personally
appearing before him to attest to the truth
of its contents. This is to enable him to verify
the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that
the document is the party's free and
voluntary act and deed.
FACTS:
 Dizon filed a complaint against Atty.
Cabucana praying for his disbarment for
falsification of public document. He alleged
that he is one of the would-be-buyers of a
parcel of land owned by the heirs of
Callangan who were parties in a Civil Case
and that said parties executed a
compromised agreement notarized by Atty
Cabucana. Subsequently, the parties testified
that they signed the agreement, however,
not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana. This
irregularity caused an undue delay in the
resolution of the said Civil Case which
caused damage and injury to him.
Furthermore, Dizon alleged that Atty
Cabucana violated the Notarial Law when he
notarized the document despite the absence
of most of the signatories and uttered grave
threats against him.
 In his defense, Atty. Cabucana averred that
the complaint was intended to harass him
because he was the private prosecutor of a
criminal case filed against Dizon and that he
had no cause of action since he was not
 injured and he was not a party to he
compromise agreement.
 Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – found Atty. Cabucana violating
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR when he
notarized the agreement without the
presence of all the signatories.
o Recommendation – suspension as
Notary Public for 2 years and from the
practice of law for 6months.
 IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner but
modified his suspension from as Notary
Public to 6months.
o In a Resolution, IBP Board of Governors
modified its earlier decision by modifying
Atty. Cabucana’s suspension from the
practice of law to 1month and he be
disqualified from re-appointment as
notary public for 1 year.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial
Law?
RULING: The Court agrees with the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
except as to the penalty.
Section 1 of the Notarial Law provides
the requirement of affiant's personal appearance
before the Notary Public, this is further
emphasized in Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the
Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. As a notary
public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the
same person executing it and personally
appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
document is the party's free and voluntary act
and deed.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the Court nds respondent
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS
him from the practice of law for three (3)
months, REVOKES his incumbent notarial
commission, if any, and PROHIBITS him from
being commissioned as a notary public for two
(2) years, effective immediately, with a stern
WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
4. JANDOQUILE v REVILLA, JR.
DOCTRINE:
 If the notary public knows the
affiants personally, he need not
require them to show their valid
identification cards. This rule is
supported by the definition of a
"jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A
"jurat" refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion:
a) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an
instrument or document;
b) is personally known to the
notary public or identified by
the notary public through
competent evidence of identity;
c) signs the instrument or
document in the presence of the
notary; and
d) takes an oath or affirmation
before the notary public as to
such instrument or document.
FACTS:
 Atty. Revilla notarized a complaint-
affidavit signed by Heneraline,
Herizalyn and Elmer. The names
mentioned were all related to Atty.
th
Revilla within his 4 civil degree.
 Jandoquile complains that Atty.
Revilla is disqualified to perform the
notarial act per Sec. 3 (c) Rule IV of
the Notarial Law. He further
complains that Atty. Revilla did not
require the 3 affiants to show their
valid identification cards. Hence, this
disbarment case.
 Atty. Revilla did not deny the
allegations against him but avers
 that it is not a sufficient ground for
disbarment.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Revilla violated Section 3
(c) Rule IV of the Notarial Law?
RULING: Yes, however, the Court deems it
proper to resolve the case instead of
referring it to the IBP. Revilla readily
admitted that he notarized the
complaint0affidavit of his relatives within the
th
4 civil degree of affinity, thus, violating
Section 3 (c) of Rule IV of the Notarial Law.
The Court also agreed with Atty.
Revilla that violating Section 3 (c) of Rule IV
is not a sufficient ground for disbarment. If
the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to
show their valid identification cards. This rule
is supported by the definition of a "jurat"
under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
e) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an
instrument or document;
f) is personally known to the
notary public or identified by
the notary public through
competent evidence of identity;
g) signs the instrument or
document in the presence of the
notary; and
h) takes an oath or affirmation
before the notary public as to
such instrument or document.
Thus, he was justified in no longer requiring
them to show valid identification cards. But Atty.
Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing to
indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-
a davit. No statement was included therein that
he knows the three a ants personally.
To our mind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit
any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or
gross immoral conduct, or any other serious
ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court. Considering the
attendant circumstances and the single violation
committed by Atty. Revilla, Jr., we are in
agreement that a punishment less severe than
disbarment would suffice.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Quirino P.
Revilla, Jr., is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public, or
from performing any notarial act if he is
presently commissioned as a notary public, for a
period of three (3) months. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is
further DIRECTED to INFORM the Court, through
an a davit once the period of his disqualification
has lapsed.
5. PESTO v MILLO
DOCTRINE:
An attorney who conceals his inefficiency
and lack of diligence by giving wrong
information to his client regarding the
matter subject of their professional
relationship is guilty of conduct unbecoming
an officer of the Court. He thereby violates
his Lawyer's Oath to conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to his client.
He also thereby violates Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, by which he is called upon to
serve his client with competence and
diligence.
FACTS:
 Johnny, a Canadian national, charged Atty.
Marcelito M. Millo with conduct
unbecoming an officer of the Court,
misleading his client, bungling the transfer
of title, and incompetence and negligence in
the performance of his duty as a lawyer.
 Johnny averred that, after paying a total
amount of Php24k, Atty. Millo repeatedly
gave them false information and numerous
excuses regarding the transfer of title over a
parcel of land and adoption of his wife’s
niece. Such actions of Atty. Millo resulted to
accrued penalties of the said land and the
dismissal of the adoption case. Johnny
added that Atty. Millo suddenly cannot be
 contacted and requested to move a hearing
without their knowledge or informing them.
 Atty. Millo claimed that Johnny died and
that his wife would be withdrawing the
complaint against him.
 Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – Atty. Millo violated Canon 18 of
the CPR
 CANON 18 — A LAWYER
SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
o Recommendation – Suspension from
the practice of law for 6months.
 IBP Board of Governor affirmed the
Investigating Commissioner’s findings but
lowered the suspension to 2months and
ordered Atty. Millo to return the amount of
Php16k
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Millo violated Canon 18 of
the CPR?
RULING: The Court affirms the IBP Board of
Governor’s Resolution but modify the
penalty
Atty. Millo's acceptance of the sums of
money from Johnny and Abella to enable
him to attend to the transfer of title and to
complete the adoption case initiated the
lawyer-client relationship between them.
From that moment on, Atty. Millo assumed
the duty to render competent and efficient
professional service to them as his clients.
Yet, he failed to discharge his duty. He was
inefficient and negligent in going about
what the professional service he had
assumed required him to do.
Without doubt, Atty. Millo had the
obligation to serve his clients with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, expressly so demanded of
him.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Indeed, a refutation was the requisite
response from any worthy and blameless
respondent lawyer. His belated and terse
characterization of the charge by claiming
that the charge had emanated from a mere
"misunderstanding" was not sufficient. He
did not thereby refute the charge against
him, which omission indicated that the
complaint had substance. It mattered little
now that he had in the meantime returned
the amount of P14,000.00 to the clients, and
that the application for adoption had been
eventually granted by the trial court. Such
events, being not only post facto, but also
inevitable from sheer passage of time, did
not obliterate his liability based on the
neglect and ineptitude he had inflicted on
his clients.
It even seems very likely that Atty. Millo
purposely disregarded the opportunity to
answer the charges granted to him out of a
desire to delay the investigation of the
complaint until both Johnny and Abella,
being residents in Canada, would have
already lost interest in prosecuting it, or, as
happened here, would have already
departed this world and be no longer able
to rebut whatever refutations he would
ultimately make, whether true or not. But the
Court is not about to condone such selfish
disregard. Let it be emphasized to him.
Atty. Millo made his situation even
worse by consistently absenting himself
from the scheduled hearings the IBP had set
for his benefit. His disregard of the IBP's
orders requiring his attendance in the
hearings was not only irresponsible, but also
constituted utter disrespect for the Judiciary
and his fellow lawyers. Such conduct was
absolutely unbecoming of a lawyer, because
lawyers are particularly called upon to obey
Court orders and processes and are
expected to stand foremost in complying
with orders from the duly constituted
authorities.
 Surprisingly, Atty. Millo claimed that his
belated response to the charge was due to
the assurances of Abella that she would be
withdrawing the complaint. The Court
disbelieves him, however, and treats his
claim as nothing but a belated attempt to
save the day for himself. He ought to
remember that the withdrawal of an
administrative charge for suspension or
disbarment based on an attorney's
professional misconduct or negligence will
not furnish a ground to dismiss the charge.
Suspension or disbarment proceedings that
are warranted will still proceed regardless of
the lack or loss of interest on the part of the
complainant. The Court may even entirely
ignore the withdrawal of the complaint, and
continue to investigate in order to finally
determine whether the charge of
professional negligence or misconduct was
borne out by the record.
His professional misconduct warranted a
longer suspension from the practice of law
because he had caused material prejudice to
the clients' interest. He should somehow be
taught to be more ethical and professional
in dealing with trusting clients who were
innocently too willing to repose their utmost
trust in his abilities as a lawyer and in his
trustworthiness as a legal professional. He
should remember that misconduct has no
place in the heart and mind of a lawyer who
has taken the solemn oath to delay no man
for money or malice, and to conduct himself
as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion. Under the
circumstances, suspension from the practice
of law for six months is the condign and
commensurate penalty for him. Although he
ought also to refund the amount of
P15,643.75 representing the penalty for the
late payment of the capital gains tax, the
Court cannot order him to refund that
amount because it is not a collection agency.
The Court may only direct the repayment of
attorney’s fees received on the basis that a
respondent attorney did not render efficient
service to the client.
HELD: WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and
HOLDS Atty. MARCELITO M. MILLO guilty of
violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's
Oath; SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for a period of six months effective from notice,
with the STERN WARNING that any similar
infraction in the future will be dealt with more
severely; ORDERS him to return to the heirs of
Johnny and Abella Pesto within ten days from
notice the sum of P10,000.00, plus legal interest
of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of
this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS
him to promptly submit to this Court written
proof of his compliance within thirty days from
notice of this decision.
6. TRINIDAD, ET AL v VILLARIN
DOCTRINE:
As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent
is expected to champion the cause of his
client with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion. Nevertheless, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides the
limitation that lawyers shall perform their
duty to the client within the bounds of law.
What he does is clearly proscribed by
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not
present and offer in evidence any document
that they know is false.
FACTS:
 The buyers of the land in Don Jose
Zavalla Subdivision filed a complaint
against the subdivisions owner and
developer in HLURB. Subsequently,
HLURB issued a Decision that
became final and executory.
 It was at this point that respondent
Villarin entered his special
appearance to represent Purence
Realty and filed an Omnibus Motion
to set aside the Decision and Quash
the Writ of Execution on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction.
  Subsequently, they sent demand
letters to the complainants to
immediately vacate the property
and surrender it to them within
5days. However, complainants did
not comply to said demand because
of this, respondent filed a complaint
for forcible entry.
 Thereafter, the complainants filed an
administrative and disbarment case
against Villarin on the ground that
the deman letter sent to them was
issued with malice and intent to
harass them and that it contravened
the HLURB Decision to permit the
buyers to pay the balance.
 Since the cases were related, the IBP
Commissioner consolidated both
cases.
 Villarin denied the allegation and
claimed that there was no malice in
the demand letter. He narrated that
when he inquired at the HLURB, he
was informed that his client did not
receive a summons pertinent to the
Complaint for specific damages.
Moreover, he insisted that the
addressees of the letters were
different from the complainants who
had filed the case with the HLURB.
 IBP and IBP Board of Governors:
o Report - Respondent
counsel merely acted on his
legal theory. Espousing the
belief that the proceedings
in the HLURB were void,
hence, it was not malicious.
o Recommendation
Reprimand with a stern
warning
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be
administratively sanctioned for sending the
demand letters despite a final and executory
HLURB Decision
RULING: The Court affirms the report and
recommendation of the IBP.
As the lawyer of Purence Realty,
respondent is expected to champion the
cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion. Nevertheless, the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides the
limitation that lawyers shall perform their
duty to the client within the bounds of law.
In this case, respondent's act of issuing
demand letters, moved by the
understanding of a void HLURB Decision, is
legally sanctioned. If his theory holds water,
the notice to vacate becomes necessary in
order to file an action for ejectment. Hence,
he did not resort to any fraud or chicanery
prohibited by the Code, just to maintain his
client's disputed ownership over the
subdivision lots.
Even so, respondent cannot be
considered free of error. The factual findings
of the IBP board of governors reveal that in
his demand letter, he brazenly typified one
of the complainants, Florentina Lander, as an
illegal occupant and disregarded it.
However, this description is the exact
opposite of the truth, since the final and
executory HLURB Decision had already
recognized her as a subdivision lot buyer
who had a right to complete her payments
in order to occupy her property. Respondent
is very much aware of this ruling when he
filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the
HLURB Decision and the appurtenant Writ of
Execution.
What he does is clearly proscribed by
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to
– attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not
present and offer in evidence any document
that they know is false.
HELD: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin is
REPRIMANDED with a warning that a repetition
of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
 7. MACARUBBO v MACARUBBO
DOCTRINE:
In order to be reinstated, respondent lawyer
must possess the following:
1. Remorse and reformation;
2. Sufficient time lapsed;
3. The age of respondent lawyer;
4. A showing of promise or potential for
public service; and
5. Other relevant factors, such as good
moral character.
FACTS:
 This is a petition for extraordinary
mercy filed by respondent Atty.
Macarubbo who seeks to be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
 Based on the Decision, the Court
disbarred respondent lawyer for
contracting 2 subsequent marriages
st
while his 1 marriage was still
subsisting. Said acts of respondent
lawyer constituted gross immoral
conduct in violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer’s petition to
be reinstated in the Rolls of Attorneys, be
granted?
RULING: The Court finds the instant petition
meritorious.
In order to be reinstated, respondent
lawyer must possess the following:
6. Remorse and reformation;
7. Sufficient time lapsed;
8. The age of respondent lawyer;
9. A showing of promise or potential for
public service; and
10. Other relevant factors, such as good
moral character.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his
remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in
the legal profession and in his personal life. He
has asked forgiveness from his children by
complainant Teves and maintained a cordial
relationship with them as shown by the herein
attached pictures. Records also show that after
his disbarment, respondent returned to his
hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his
time tending an orchard and taking care of his
ailing mother until her death in 2008. In 2009, he
was appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor
of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the
position of Local Assessment Operations Officer
II/Office-in-Charge in the Assessor's Office,
which office he continues to serve to date.
Moreover, he is a part-time instructor.
Respondent likewise took an active part in socio-
civic activities by helping his neighbors and
friends who are in dire need.
Furthermore, respondent's plea for
reinstatement is duly supported by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cagayan
Chapter and by his former and present
colleagues. His parish priest certified that he is
faithful and puts to actual practice the doctrines
of the Catholic Church. He is also observed to be
a regular churchgoer. Records further reveal that
respondent has already settled his previous
marital squabbles.
Therefore, the Court finds that respondent
has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At
58 years of age, he still has productive years
ahead of him that could significantly contribute
to the upliftment of the law profession and the
betterment of society. While the Court is ever
mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove
its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to
show compassion to those who have reformed
their ways, as in this case. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby ordered reinstated to the
practice of law. He is, however, reminded that
such privilege is burdened with conditions
whereby adherence to the rigid standards of
intellect, moral uprightness, and strict
compliance with the rules and the law are
continuing requirements.
HELD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant petition is GRANTED. Respondent
Edmundo L. Macarubbo is hereby ordered
REINSTATED in the Roll of Attorneys.
 8. HERNANDEZ v PADILLA respondent deliberately withheld his
DOCTRINE: response every time he is asked
 However, respondent, as counsel, had the about the status of the appeal.
duty to inform his clients of the status of  In his defense, respondent lawyer
their case. His failure to do so amounted to moved for the dismissal of the
a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code. complaint and explained that he is
 Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a not the lawyer of the complainant.
lawyer shall not handle any legal matter He claimed that he believed that
without adequate preparation. While it is what is required is the said
true that respondent was not complainant's Memorandum because
lawyer from the trial to the appellate court complainant’s husband begged him
stage, this fact did not excuse him from his to prepare a Memorandum on
duty to diligently study a case he had Appeal. Moreover, he claims that
agreed to handle. before filing the Memorandum, eh
 Acceptance of money from a client advised complainants husband to
establishes an attorney-client relationship settle the case and the latter
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the allegedly ‘gestured approval of the
client's cause. Once a lawyer agrees to advice.’
handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve  IBP Investigating Commissioner:
the client with competence and diligence. o Report – Respondent
Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. lawyer violated Canons 5,
 Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable 17, and 18 of the CPR
for negligence in handling the client's case.  CANON 5 — A
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters lawyer shall keep
entrusted to them, otherwise their abreast of legal
negligence in fulfilling their duty would developments,
render them liable for disciplinary action. participate in
Respondent has failed to live up to his continuing legal
duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates education
his duties to his client, he engages in programs, support
unethical and unprofessional conduct for efforts to achieve
which he should be held accountable. high standards in
law schools as well
FACTS: as in the practical
 Complainants and her husband were training of law
the clients of respondent lawyer in students and assist
an ejectment case. In the said case, in disseminating
complainants were ordered to file information
an Appellants’ Brief. However, herein regarding the law
respondent filed a Memorandum on and jurisprudence.
Appeal which was dismissed.  18.04 — A lawyer
Thereafter, respondent lawyer did shall keep the client
not file a motion for reconsideration. informed of the
Hence, this disbarment case. status of his case
 Complainant claim that respondent and shall respond
acted with deceit and unfaithfulness within a reasonable
amounting to malpractice of law. time to the client's
Complainant further claims that
 request for Memorandum of Appeal based on what the
information. husband said. However, the Court ruled that
 Rule 18.03 — A regardless of the particular pleading his
lawyer shall not client may have believed to be necessary, it
neglect a legal was respondent's duty to know the proper
matter entrusted to pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC
him, and his decisions.
negligence in When the RTC ruled against
connection complainant and her husband, they filed a
therewith shall Notice of Appeal instead of an ordinary
render him liable. appeal in accordance to Rule 44 of the Rules
o Recommendation – on Civil Procedure. Respondent, as a
Suspension from practicing litigator, was expected to know this
law from 3 to 6 months. procedure pursuant to Canon 5 of the CPR,
 IBP Board of Governors: adopt and thus, violating the said Canon.
approve the Report and Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a
Recommendation of the lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
Investigating Commissioner. without adequate preparation. While it is
o Resolution – IBP Board of true that respondent was not complainant's
Governors reduced the lawyer from the trial to the appellate court
suspension to 1month. stage, this fact did not excuse him from his
duty to diligently study a case he had
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer be agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have
disbarred? enough time to study the pertinent matters
involved, as he was approached by
RULING: The Court adopts the factual complainant's husband only two days before
findings of the board of governors, however, the expiration of the period for filing the
disagrees with its resolution to reduce the Appellant's Brief, respondent should have
penalty. Hence, affirming the 6months filed a motion for extension of time to file
suspension that was originally imposed. the proper pleading instead of whatever
Respondent insists that he had never pleading he could come up with, just to
met complainant prior to the mandatory "beat the deadline set by the Court of
conference set for the disbarment Complaint Appeals."
she filed against him. However, a perusal of Moreover, respondent claims that he
the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the was under the presumption that
appellate court revealed that he had signed complainant and her husband had already
as counsel for the defendant-appellants settled the case, because he had not heard
therein, including complainant and her from the husband since the filing of the
husband. latter's Memorandum of Appeal. However,
Acceptance of money from a client respondent, as counsel, had the duty to
establishes an attorney-client relationship inform his clients of the status of their case.
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the His failure to do so amounted to a violation
client's cause. Once a lawyer agrees to of Rule 18.04 of the Code.
handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve Lastly, the failure of respondent to file
the client with competence and diligence. the proper pleading and a comment on
Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. Duigan's Motion to Dismiss is negligence on
Respondent claimed that he honestly his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is
believed that what is required is a liable for negligence in handling the client's
 case. Lawyers should not neglect legal
matters entrusted to them, otherwise their
negligence in fulfilling their duty would
render them liable for disciplinary action.
Respondent has failed to live up to his
duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates
his duties to his client, he engages in
unethical and unprofessional conduct for
which he should be held accountable.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio
Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02,
18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Hence he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or a similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
9. ANIÑON v SABITSANA, JR.
DOCTRINE:
 The relationship between a lawyer and
his/her client should ideally be imbued with
the highest level of trust and confidence in
order to promote a full disclosure of the
client's most confidential information to
his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange
of information between them. The lawyer,
therefore, is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all dealings and
transactions with the client. Part of the
lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests, a matter
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
 "The proscription against representation of
conflicting interests applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present
clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action." Jurisprudence has provided three
tests in determining whether a violation of
the above rule is present in a given case:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight
for an issue or claim in behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose
that claim for the other client.
2. Whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty.
3. Whether the lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to use against
a former client any confidential
information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.
 The essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be informed of the charge
against oneself and to be heard or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, the
opportunity to explain one's side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. These
opportunities were all afforded to
respondent lawyer, as shown by the above
circumstances.
 Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
sui generis. In the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the
end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession. We likewise aim to ensure
the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of
members who, by their misconduct, have
proven themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
of an attorney.
FACTS:
 This is a disbarment complaint filed
by Aninon against respondent Atty.
Sabitsana, charging the latter of:
o Violation of the lawyer’s
duty to preserve
confidential information
received form his client; and
o Violation of the prohibition
on representing conflicting
interests.
 Complainant contends that she
previously engaged the legal
services of herein respondent lawyer
over a Deed of Sale over a parcel of
 land, and the latter allegedly
violated her confidence when he
subsequently filed a civil case
against her for the annulment of the
Deed of Sale using confidential
information he obtained from her.
 Respondent lawyer admitted having
advised complainant in the
preparation and executing of the
Deed of Sale. However, he denied
having received any confidential
information and asserted that the
disbarment complaint was initiated
by another lawyer who lost a case
against him.
 IBP Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – found respondent
lawyer administratively
liable for representing
conflicting interests.
o Recommendation - and loyalty to the client or invite
suspension of 1year from
the practice of law.
 IBP Board of Governors adopt and
approve the report and
recommendation of the IBP
Commissioner
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer is guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting
interests?
RULING: The Court agrees with the findings
and recommendations of the IBP
Commissioner and Board of Governors.
The relationship between a lawyer and
his/her client should ideally be imbued with
the highest level of trust and confidence in
order to promote a full disclosure of the
client's most confidential information to
his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange
of information between them. The lawyer,
therefore, is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all dealings and
transactions with the client. Part of the
lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests, a matter
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
"The proscription against representation
of conflicting interests applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present
clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action." Jurisprudence has provided three
tests in determining whether a violation of
the above rule is present in a given case:
4. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight
for an issue or claim in behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose
that claim for the other client.
5. Whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty.
6. Whether the lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to use against
a former client any confidential
information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.
Based on the above mentioned facts of
the case, the Court finds substantial
evidence to support respondent lawyer’s
violation of the said rule. The Court further
ruled that even if Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
the CPR provides an exception to the
prohibition, the Court cannot apply such
exemption in this cases due to respondent
lawyer’s failure to obtain the written
consents of his 2 clients. Moreover,
respondent lawyer did not make a full
disclosure of facts to the complainant and to
his other client before he accepted the
annulment of the Deed of Sale. Hence, the
Court finds respondent lawyer guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting
interest and agrees with the penalty of
suspension for 1year from the practice of
law.
 With regards to violation of respondent
lawyer’s right to due process, the Court held
that the essence of due process is simply the
opportunity to be informed of the charge
against oneself and to be heard or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, the
opportunity to explain one's side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. These
opportunities were all afforded to
respondent lawyer, as shown by the above
circumstances.
All told, disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. In the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls
upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the
end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession. We likewise aim to ensure
the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of
members who, by their misconduct, have
proven themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
of an attorney.
HELD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is
found GUILTY of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one
(1) year from the practice of law. Atty. Sabitsana
is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of
his receipt of this Decision so that we can
determine the reckoning point when his
suspension shall take effect.
10. TUMBOKON v PEFIANCO
DOCTRINE:
 The practice of law is considered a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess and continue to possess
the legal qualifications for the profession. As
such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency,
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing,
and must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and
their clients, in accordance with the values
and norms embodied in the Code. Lawyers
may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct
that is wanting of the above standards
whether in their professional or in their
private capacity.
 Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a
lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide
a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain
cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.
 The power to disbar should be exercised
with great caution and only in clear cases of
misconduct that seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of
the court and as member of the bar, or the
misconduct borders on the criminal, or
committed under scandalous circumstance,
which do not obtain here.
FACTS:
 Complainant contends that
respondent undertook to give him
20% commission, which was later on
reduced to 10%, of the attorney’s
fees the latter would receive in
representing spouses Yap. Said
agreement was reflected in a letter,
however, respondent failed to pay
him the agreed commission
notwithstanding receipt of
attorney’s fees of 17%. Hence, he
demanded the payment of his
commission but the respondent
lawyer ignored. Hence, this
disbarment complaint against
respondent lawyer.
 Complainant further alleged that
respondent has not lived up to the
high moral standards required of his
profession for having abandoned his
family and cohabited with another
woman whom he has 4 children.
  In his defense, respondent disputed
that the said letter was forged and
claimed that spouses Yap assumed
to pay complainants commission.
Thus, praying for the dismissal of
the complaint.
 IBP Investigating Commissioner
o Report – found respondent
lawyer violating the Lawyer’s
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1;
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule
9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR.
o Recommendation – immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard
suspension for 1year from
the practice of law.
 IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the report and
recommendation of the
investigating commissioner.
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer’s actions are
ground for disbarment?
RULING: The Court adopts the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Governors.
The practice of law is considered a
privilege bestowed by the State on those
who show that they possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. As such, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing, and must perform their four-
fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with
the values and norms embodied in the
Code. Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for
any conduct that is wanting of the above
standards whether in their professional or in
their private capacity.
Respondent’s defense of forgery was
belied by his admission of undertaking the
payment of complainant’s commission.
Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a
lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide
a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in certain
cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny
the accusation that he abandoned his legal
family to cohabit with his mistress with
whom he begot four children
notwithstanding that his moral character as
well as his moral fitness to be retained in the
Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The
settled rule is that betrayal of the marital
vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and
of the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws.
Nonetheless, while the Court ruled that
respondent should be sanctioned for his
actions, the power to disbar should be
exercised with great caution and only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and as
member of the bar, or the misconduct
borders on the criminal, or committed under
scandalous circumstance, which do not
obtain here. Considering the circumstances
of the case, the Court deems it appropriate
that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year as
recommended.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY.
MARIANO R. PEFIANCO is found GUILTY of
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the same Code and
SUSPENDED from the active practice of law for
ONE (1) YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
11. BENGCO v BERNARDO
DOCTRINE:
The Court has held that administrative cases
against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of
considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the
administrative complaint will not erase the
administrative culpability of a lawyer.
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of and violation of his duties and oath
justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they as a lawyer.
are expected to maintain not only legal  Complainants alleged that
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, respondent lawyer willfully and with
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, intent to defraud them, connived
the people's faith and confidence in the judicial with one Magat expedite the titling
system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined — of a land. Respondent lawyer
whether in their professional or in their private indirectly asked them for additional
capacity — for any conduct that is wanting in payment by representing
morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. connections that can help them
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the CPR provides: expedite the titling, included in the
Rule 2.03. — A lawyer shall not do or permit representation is that a lawyer is a
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit prospective buyer. Such
legal business. representations were allegedly
Rule 3.01. — A lawyer shall not use or permit made with the knowledge of falsity.
the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, Complainant further alleged that
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair respondent lawyer requested
statement or claim regarding his qualifications multiple times to extend his period
or legal services. to answer but failed to show up
The practice of law is not a business. It is a when the Commissioner called for a
profession in which duty to public service, not mandatory conference.
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering Subsequently, respondent was
is not primarily meant to be a money-making convicted of estafa.
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that  One of respondent lawyer’s
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a defenses was that the action has
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. already prescribed because the
The duty to public service and to the alleged act was committed in 1997
administration of justice should be the primary but the action was only filed in 2004
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate  IBP Investigating Commissioner:
their personal interests or what they owe to o Report – finds respondent,
themselves. with the help and in
It is likewise settled that a disbarment connivance and collusion
proceeding is separate and distinct from a with a certain Magat, using
criminal action filed against a lawyer despite false pretenses and deceitful
having involved the same set of facts. words, willfully and illegally
Jurisprudence has it "that a finding of guilt in the committed fraudulent acts
criminal case will not necessarily result in a to the effect that
finding of liability in the administrative case. respondent would expedite
Conversely, the respondent's acquittal does not the titling of the land
necessarily exculpate him administratively." belonging to the
acquaintance of
FACTS: complainants. Moreover, the
 This is a disbarment and estafa case failure of the lawyer to
filed by the Bengcos against answer the complaint for
respondent Atty. Bernardo for disbarment despite due
deceit, malpractice, conduct notice on several occasions
unbecoming a member of the Bar and appear on the
scheduled hearings set,
 shows his flouting resistance
to lawful orders of the court
and illustrates his
despiciency for his oath of
office as a lawyer which
deserves disciplinary
sanction. It could not be
denied that respondent
committed a crime that
import deceit and violation
of his attorney's oath and
the Code of Professional
Responsibility under both of
which he was bound to
'obey the laws of the land.'
The commission of unlawful
acts, specially crimes
involving moral turpitude,
acts of dishonesty in
violation of the attorney's
oath, grossly immoral
conduct and deceit are
grounds for suspension or
disbarment of lawyers
o Recommendation – Lawyers may be disciplined — whether in their
suspension for 2years from
the practice of law.
 IBP Board of Governors resolved
to adopt and approve with
modification the report and
recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. The IBP
Governors further ordered
respondent lawyer for the restitution
of the amount of Php200K within
60days from receipt of notice with a
warning that if he does not return
amount, he will be meted the
penalty of 1year suspension from
the practice of law.
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer violated he
provisions of the CPR?
RULING: The Court adopts and agrees with
the findings and conclusions of the IBP.
Respondent’s defense of prescription is
untenable. The Court has held that
administrative cases against lawyers do not
prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from
the commission of the offending act to the
institution of the administrative complaint will
not erase the administrative culpability of a
lawyer.
Further, consistent with his failure to file his
answer after he himself pleaded for several
extensions of time to file the same, the
respondent failed to appear during the
mandatory conference, as ordered by the IBP. As
a lawyer, the respondent is considered as an
officer of the court who is called upon to obey
and respect court processes. Such acts of the
respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous
affront on the court's authority which cannot be
countenanced.
It cannot be overstressed that lawyers are
instruments in the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected
to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a
high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing. In so doing, the people's faith and
confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
professional or in their private capacity — for
any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
probity and good demeanor. Rules 2.03 and 3.01
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.
Rule 3.01. — A lawyer shall not use or permit
the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications
or legal services.
There is no question that the respondent
committed the acts complained of. He himself
admitted in his answer that his legal services
were hired by the complainants through Magat
regarding the purported titling of land
supposedly purchased. While he begs for the
Court's indulgence, his contrition is shallow
considering the fact that he used his position as
a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants
into believing that he can expedite the titling of
the subject properties.
 The practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate
their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves.
It is likewise settled that a disbarment
proceeding is separate and distinct from a
criminal action filed against a lawyer despite
having involved the same set of facts.
Jurisprudence has it "that a finding of guilt in the
criminal case will not necessarily result in a
finding of liability in the administrative case.
Conversely, the respondent's conviction does
not necessarily exculpate him administratively."
It only undermines the respondent's moral
fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138,
Section 27.
SEC. 27. Disbarment and 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.
HELD: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found
guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
effective upon notice hereof. Further, the Court
ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN
the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and
Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from
receipt of this Decision and (2) to SUBMIT his
proof of compliance thereof to the Court,
through the Office of the Bar Confidant within
TEN (10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN
WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him
the additional penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year.
12. OCA v Indar
DOCTRINE:
 Public office is a public trust This
constitutional principle requires a judge, like
any other public servant and more so
because of his exalted position in the
Judiciary, to exhibit at all times the highest
degree of honesty and integrity As the
visible representation of the law tasked with
dispensing justice, a judge should conduct
himself at all times in a manner that would
merit the respect and confidence of the
people.
 The Court defines misconduct as ‚a
transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a
public officer.‛ The misconduct is grave if it
involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law,
or to disregard established rules, which must
be established by substantial evidence. As
distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in a
charge of grave misconduct.
 The Court defines dishonesty as: ‚disposition
to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack
of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betrayal‛.
FACTS:
 This case was originated from reports by
the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and
Quezon City to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) that they have
received an alarming number of
decisions, resolutions, and orders on
annulment of marriage cases allegedly
 issued by Judge Indar in his capacity as
Presiding Judge and as acting Presiding
Judge.
 It was alleged that Judge Indar made it
appear that the annulment cases
underwent trial, when the records show
no judicial proceedings occurred. To
verify the allegations against Judge
Indar, the OCA conducted a judicial
audit in RTC-Shariff Aguak, where the
Audit Team found that the list of cases
submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of
Manila and Quezon City do not appear
in the records of cases received, pending
or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak.
Likewise, the annulment decisions did
not exist in the records of RTC-Cotabato.
 The Audit Team further observed that
the case numbers in the list submitted
by the Local Civil Registrars are not
within the series of case numbers
recorded in the docket books of either
RTC-Shariff Aguak or RTC-Cotabato.
Moreover the judicial audit team also
found out that Judge Indar affirmed in
writing before the Australian Embassy
the validity of a decision he allegedly
rendered, when in fact that case does
not appear in the court’s records.
ISSUE: W/N respondent judge is guilty of
gross misconduct and dishonesty?
RULING: Public office is a public trust This
constitutional principle requires a judge, like
any other public servant and more so
because of his exalted position in the
Judiciary, to exhibit at all times the highest
degree of honesty and integrity As the
visible representation of the law tasked with
dispensing justice, a judge should conduct
himself at all times in a manner that would
merit the respect and confidence of the
people.
In Office of the Court Administrator v.
Lopez, the Court explained the difference
between simple misconduct and grave
misconduct, thus: The Court defines
misconduct as ‚a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer.‛ The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful
intent to violate the law, or to disregard
established rules, which must be established
by substantial evidence. As distinguished
from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or
flagrant disregard of established rule, must
be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.
The Court condemns Judge Indar’s
reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that
voided marital unions, without conducting
any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance
not only makes a mockery of marriage and
its life-changing consequences but likewise
grossly violates the basic norms of truth,
justice, and due process. Not only that,
Judge Indar’s gross misconduct greatly
undermines the people’s faith in the
judiciary and betrays public trust and
confidence in the courts. Judge Indar’s utter
lack of moral fitness has no place in the
Judiciary. Judge Indar deserves nothing less
than dismissal from the service.
The Court defines dishonesty as:
‚disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack
of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betrayal‛.
In this case, Judge Indar issued
Decisions on numerous annulments of
marriage cases when in fact he did not
conduct any judicial proceedings on the
cases. Not even the filing of the petitions
occurred. Judge Indar made it appear in his
Decisions that the annulment cases
complied with the stringent requirements of
the Rules of Court and the strict statutory
and jurisprudential conditions for voiding
marriages, when quite the contrary is true,
violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which mandates that a judge
‚perform official duties honestly.‛
HELD: WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent
Judge Cader P. Indar guilty of Gross Misconduct
and Dishonesty for which he is DISMISSED from
the service.
13. COMILANG v BELEN
DOCTRINE:
 A preliminary injunction is a provisional
remedy, an adjunct to the main case
subject to the latter's outcome. Its sole
objective is to preserve the status quo
until the court hears fully the merits of
the case. Its primary purpose is not to
correct a wrong already consummated,
or to redress an injury already sustained,
or to punish wrongful acts already
committed, but to preserve and protect
the rights of the litigants during the
pendency of the case.
 Indirect contempt proceedings,
therefore, may be initiated only in two
ways:
o motu proprio by the court
through an order or any other
formal charge requiring the
respondent to show cause why
he should not be punished for
contempt; or
o by a verified petition and upon
compliance with the
requirements for initiatory
pleadings.
 Judges are expected to exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural laws. They must
know the laws and apply them properly
in good faith as judicial competence
requires no less. Moreover, refusal to
honor an injunctive order of a higher
court constitutes contempt, as in this
case. Judge Belen's actuations, therefore,
cannot be considered as mere errors of
judgment that can be easily brushed
aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and
established rule of law or procedure
amounts to inexcusable abuse of
authority and gross ignorance of the
law.
 Our conception of good judges has
been, and is, of men who have a mastery
of the principles of law, who discharge
their duties in accordance with law.
FACTS:
 This is an administrative complaint
filed by Prosecutor Comilang and
Lagman against respondent Judge
Belen for manifest partiality and
bias, evident bad faith, inexcusable
abuse of authority, and gross
ignorance of law.
 Prosecutor Comilang appeared
before respondent judge
manifesting his inability to appear
on Thursdays because of his inquest
duties in the Provincial Prosecutor's
Office. Thus, he moved all cases
falling on that day before
respondent judge be deferred.
However, respondent judge issued
an order in the criminal case,
requiring prosecutor Comilang to
explain why he did not inform the
court of his previously-scheduled
preliminary investigation and to pay
a fine for the cancellation of the
scheduled hearings.
 In response, prosecutor Comilang
filed his explanation with motion for
reconsideration. Subsequently,
respondent judge rendered a
decision finding the former liable for
contempt of court. Aggrieved,
prosecutor complainant filed this
complaint-affidavit before the OCA
finding respondent judge with
manifest partiality and bias, evident
bad faith, grave abuse of authority
and gross ignorance of law.
 Complainant Comilang further
alleged that respondent judge’s
acts were intended to harass,
oppress, persecute, intimidate,
annoy, vex and coerce him, and
place him in a disadvantageous and
compromising position, as he was
 prosecuting a libel case filed by behave at all times
complainant Lagman against as to promote
respondent judge. public confidence in
 Complainants jointly filed a letter- the integrity and
complaint alleging that prosecutor impartiality of the
Baculi was also harassed and judiciary.
oppressed by Judge Belen with his  Canon 3 — A
baseless and malicious citation for JUDGE SHOULD
contempt and with the use of foul, PERFORM OFFICIAL
unethical and insulting statements. DUTIES HONESTLY,
 OCA: AND WITH
o Report - found Judge Belen IMPARTIALITY AND
to have violated Section 4, DILIGENCE
Rule 71 of the Rules of ADJUDICATIVE
Court by failing to RESPONSIBILITIES
separately docket or  Rule 3.01 — A
consolidate with the judge shall be
principal case (the Estacio faithful to the law
Case) the indirect contempt and maintain
charge against State professional
Prosecutor Comilang. It also competence.
found Judge Belen to have o Recommendation - Judge
blatantly violated the Belen be adjudged guilty of
injunctive writ of the CA manifest bias and partiality,
when he issued the orders grave abuse of authority
requiring State Prosecutor and gross ignorance of the
Comilang to explain why he law and accordingly, be
failed to post a supersedeas dismissed from the service
bond which, given the with forfeiture of all benefits
antecedents of his except accrued leave credits,
administrative cases, if any, and with prejudice to
showed manifest bias and reemployment in the
partiality tantamount to bad government or any
faith and grave abuse of subdivision, agency or
authority. Judge Belen was instrumentality thereof,
likewise found to have including government-
violated the following owned and controlled
provisions of the Code of corporations and
Judicial Conduct: government financial
 Canon 2 — A institutions
JUDGE SHOULD
AVOID ISSUE: W/N respondent Judge’s acts
IMPROPRIETY AND showed manifest partiality and bias, evident
THE APPEARANCE bad faith, grave abuse of authority and gross
OF IMPROPRIETY IN ignorance of law warranting his dismissal
ALL ACTIVITIES from service?
 Rule 2.01 — A
judge should so
RULING: The Court concurs with the
findings and recommendations of the OCA,
but only in part.
Indirect contempt proceedings,
therefore, may be initiated only in two ways:
(1) motu proprio by the court through
an order or any other formal charge
requiring the respondent to show cause
why he should not be punished for
contempt; or
(2) by a verified petition and upon
compliance with the requirements for
initiatory pleadings.
In this case, the contempt charge was
commenced not through a verified petition,
but by Judge Belen motu proprio. As such,
the requirements of the rules that the
verified petition for contempt be docketed,
heard and decided separately or
consolidated with the principal action find
no application. However, Judge Belen
blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued
by the CA enjoining the implementation of
his Order and Decision.
A preliminary injunction is a provisional
remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject
to the latter's outcome. Its sole objective is
to preserve the status quo until the court
hears fully the merits of the case. Its primary
purpose is not to correct a wrong already
consummated, or to redress an injury
already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts
already committed, but to preserve and
protect the rights of the litigants during the
pendency of the case. Hence, in requiring
State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his
non-filing of a supersedeas bond, in issuing
subpoenas to compel his attendance before
court hearings relative to the contempt
proceedings, and finally, in finding him
guilty of indirect contempt for his non-
compliance with the issued subpoenas,
Judge Belen effectively defeated the status
quo which the writ of preliminary injunction
aimed to preserve.
Judges are expected to exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural laws. They must
know the laws and apply them properly in
good faith as judicial competence requires
no less. Moreover, refusal to honor an
injunctive order of a higher court constitutes
contempt, as in this case. Judge Belen's
actuations, therefore, cannot be considered
as mere errors of judgment that can be
easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of
basic and established rule of law or
procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of
authority and gross ignorance of the law.
Likewise, citing State Prosecutor Comilang
for indirect contempt notwithstanding the
effectivity of the CA-issued writ of injunction
demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad
faith towards the former, for which he must
be held accountable and subjected to
disciplinary action.
Our conception of good judges has
been, and is, of men who have a mastery of
the principles of law, who discharge their
duties in accordance with law. Hence, with
the foregoing disquisitions and Judge
Belen's previous infractions, which are all of
serious nature and for which he had been
severely warned, the Court therefore adopts
the recommendation of the OCA to mete
the ultimate penalty of dismissal against
Judge Belen for grave abuse of authority
and gross ignorance of the law. The Court
can no longer afford to be lenient in this
case, lest it give the public the impression
that incompetence and repeated offenders
are tolerated in the judiciary.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Medel
Arnaldo B. Belen, having been found guilty of
grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of
the law, is DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave
credits, if any, and with prejudice to
reemployment in the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned and controlled
corporations and government financial
institutions. He shall forthwith CEASE and DESIST
from performing any official act or function
appurtenant to his office upon service on him of
this Decision.
14. TULALI v BLANCAFLOR
DOCTRINE:
 Direct contempt is any misbehavior
in the presence of or so near a court
as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same,
including disrespect toward the
court, offensive personalities toward
others, or refusal to be sworn or to
answer as a witness, or to subscribe
or deposition when lawfully required
to do so.
 It is clear that Judge Blancaflor
gravely abused his discretion in
finding petitioners guilty as charged.
Indeed, Judge Blancaflor failed to
conform to the standard of honesty
and impartiality required of judges
as mandated under Canon 3 of the
CJC
FACTS:
 Previously pending before Judge
Blancaflor was an Arson case in
which Tulali was the trial prosecutor.
A day before the scheduled
promulgation of the decision in the
Arsn case, Tulali filed an ex-parte
manifestation withdrawing his
appearance in the said case to
prevent suspicion of misdemeanor
and collusion.
 He attached to the said
manifestation a copy of the
administrative complaint against
Awayan filed by his Superior,
Rodriguez. However, said complaint
was subsequently withdrawn.
 Judge Blancaflor rendered his
decision acquitting the accused in
the Arson case. Purportedly on the
basis of the administrative
complaint filed against Awayan and
Rodriguez. Judge Blancaflor
informed the petitioners that he was
proceeding against them for direct
contempt and violation of their oath
of office on the basis of Tulali;s Ex-
Parte Manifestation.
ISSUE: W/N Rodriguez and Tulali violated
direct contempt for filing ex-parte
manifestation withdrawing Tulali’s
appearance in the said case to prevent any
suspicion of misdemeanor and collusion?
RULING: the Court cannot sustain Judge
Blancaflor’s order penalizing petitioners for
direct contempt on the basis of Tulali’s ex-
parte manifestation.
Direct contempt is any misbehavior in
the presence of or so near a court as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before
the same, including disrespect toward the
court, offensive personalities toward others,
or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
witness, or to subscribe or deposition when
lawfully required to do so.
Based on the foregoing definition, the
act of Tulali in filing an ex-parte
manifestation cannot be construed as
contumacious within the purview of direct
contempt. It must be recalled that the
subject manifestation bore Tulali;s voluntary
withdrawal from the Arson case to dispel
suspicion or collusion between him and the
accused. Its filling on the day before the
promulgation of the decision in the pending
case, did not in any way disruot the
proceedings before the court. Accordingly,
he should not be held accountable for his
act which was done in good faith and
without malice.
Neither should Rodriguez be liable for
direct contempt as he had no knowledge of
or participation in, the preparation and filing
of the subject manifestation. It was signed
and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as
the trial prosecutor in the Arson Case. The
attached complaint against Awayan was filed
with the Office of the Palawan Governor, and
not with the RTC.
 Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s
conclusion, that the subject manifestation
containing derogatory matters was
purposely filed to discredit the
administration of justice in courts, is
unfounded and without bias. There being no
factual or legal basis for the charge of direct
contempt, it is clear that Judge Blancaflor
gravely abused his discretion in finding
petitioners guilty as charged. Indeed, Judge
Blancaflor failed to conform to the standard
of honesty and impartiality required of
judges as mandated under Canon 3 of the
CJC.
15. OLAZO v TINGA
DOCTRINE:
 The practice of law as any activity, in and
out of court, that requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.
Moreover, we ruled that to engage in
the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristics of the
profession; to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use
in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill.
 All told, considering the serious
consequences of the penalty of
disbarment or suspension of a member
of the Bar, the burden rests on the
complainant to present clear, convincing
and satisfactory proof for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers. The
respondent generally is under no
obligation to prove his/her defense, until
the burden shifts to him/her because of
what the complainant has proven.
Where no case has in the first place
been proven, nothing has to be rebutted
in defense.
FACTS:
 This is a disbarment case against
retired Supreme Court Associate
Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent)
filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo
(complainant). The respondent is
charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule
6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for
representing conflicting interests.
 The First Charge: Violation of Rule
6.02
o The complainant claimed
that the respondent abused
his position as Congressman
and as a member of the
Committee on Awards when
he unduly interfered with
the complainant’s sales
application because of his
personal interest over the
subject land.
 The Second Charge: Violation of
Rule 6.03
o The second charge involves
another parcel of land
within the proclaimed areas
belonging to Manuel Olazo,
the complainant’s brother.
The complainant alleged
that the respondent
persuaded Miguel Olazo to
direct Manuel to convey his
rights over the land to
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
 The Third Charge: Violation of Rule
1.01
o The complainant alleged
that the respondent
engaged in unlawful
conduct considering his
knowledge that Joseph
Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a
qualified beneficiary under
Memorandum No. 119. The
complainant averred that
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is
not a bona fide resident of
the proclaimed areas and
does not qualify for an
award.
  The complainant also alleged that
the respondent violated Section
7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees or Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in
the practice of law, within the one-
year prohibition period, when he
appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee
and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before
the Committee on Awards.
ISSUE: W/N respondent is liable under Rules
6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
RULING: In Cayetano v. Monsod, we defined
the practice of law as any activity, in and out
of court, that requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Moreover, we ruled that to
engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the
profession; to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill.
‚THE COMPLAINANT, TOO, FAILED TO
SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE
OF LAW. AT FACE VALUE, THE LEGAL SERVICE
RENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS LIMITED
ONLY IN THE PREPARATION OF A SINGLE
DOCUMENT. IN BORJA, SR. V. SULYAP, INC.,WE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PRIVATE PRACTICE OF
LAW AS ONE THAT CONTEMPLATES A
SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF THE SAME NATURE
HABITUALLY OR CUSTOMARILY HOLDING
ONE’S SELF TO THE PUBLIC AS A LAWYER.
All told, considering the serious
consequences of the penalty of disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden
rests on the complainant to present clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court
to exercise its disciplinary powers. The
respondent generally is under no obligation to
prove his/her defense, until the burden shifts to
him/her because of what the complainant has
proven. Where no case has in the first place
been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in
defense.
HELD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
DISMISS the administrative case for violation of
Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, filed against retired
Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga,
for lack of merit.
16. DE LEON v CASTELO
DOCTRINE:
Court also emphasized that good faith must
always motivate any complaint against a
Member of the Bar. A Bar that is insulated from
intimidation and harassment is encouraged to
be courageous and fearless, which can then best
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administration of justice.
FACTS:
 On April 29, 2010, De Leon initiated an
administrative case against Atty. Castelo
for alleged dishonesty and falsification
committed in the pleadings he filed in
behalf of the defendants in the civil
action (Civil Case No. 4674MN) in which
De Leon intervened. He alleged that
various pleadings were filed for
defendants Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu despite said spouses being
already deceased at the time of filing. As
such, complainant submits that
respondent violated his Lawyer’s Oath
and The Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Castelo, in his comments, explained that
the persons who had engaged him as
attorney to represent the Lim family
were William and Leonardo Lim, the
children of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu; that they were already actively
managing the family business, and now
co-owned the properties by virtue of the
deed of absolute sale their parents had
executed in their favor; and that they
had honestly assumed that their parents
had already caused the transfer of the
 TCTs to their names. Likewise, a Motion
for Substitution of Defendants was filed.
Thus, whether Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were still living or already
deceased as of the filing of the
pleadings became immaterial. Also, he
assured that he had no intention to
commit either a falsehood or a
falsification, for he in fact submitted the
death certificates of the Spouses in
order to apprise the trial court of that
fact.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated the letter
and spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility in making the
averments in the pleadings of the
defendants?
RULING: No. A plain reading of the
pleadings indicates that the respondent did
not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu were still living. On the
contrary, he directly stated in his answer and
clarification that the Spouses were already
deceased. He was acting in the interest of
the actual owners of the properties when he
filed the answer with counterclaim and
cross-claim. As such, his pleadings were
privileged and would not occasion any
action against him as an attorney. Also, since
the Spouses were no longer the actual
owners of the affected properties, the fact
that they are already deceased is immaterial.
De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that
the Spouses were no longer living. As voluntary
intervenor, he was charged with notice of all the
other persons interested in the litigation. He also
had an actual awareness of such other persons,
as his own complaint in intervention. Thus, he
could not validly insist that the respondent
committed any dishonesty or falsification in
relation to him or to any other party.
Court also emphasized that good faith must
always motivate any complaint against a
Member of the Bar. A Bar that is insulated from
intimidation and harassment is encouraged to
be courageous and fearless, which can then best
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administration of justice.
Hence, the complaint for disbarment or
suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo
is dismissed for utter lack of merit.
17. SANTECO v AVANCE
DOCTRINE:
 As an officer of the Court, it is a
lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity
and authority of the Court. The
Highest form of respect for judicial
authority is shown by a lawyer’s
obedience to court orders and
processes. The Court have held that
failure to comply with Court
directives constitutes gross
misconduct, insubordination or
disrespect which merits a lawyer’s
suspension or even disbarment.
 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
ROC, a member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from office
as an attorney for gross misconduct
and/or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court.
FACTS:
 In En Banc Decision, the Court found
respondent guilty of gross
misconduct for, among others,
abandoning her client’s cause in bad
faith and persistent refusal to
comply with lawful orders directed
at her without any explanation for
doing so. She was ordered
suspended from the practice of law
for 5years.
 Subsequently, while respondent’s 5
year suspension was still in effect,
Judge Among-Bocar, sent a letter-
report to the OCA informing them
that respondent had appeared and
actively participated in 3 cases
wherein she misrepresented herself
as Atty. Liezl Tanglao.
 When opposing counsels
confronted her and showed to the
 court a certification regarding her
suspension, respondent admitted
and conceded that she is Atty.
Avance, but qualified that she was
only suspended for 3 years and that
her suspension has already been
lifted.
 Acting on Judge Among-Bocar’s
letter-report, the Court, in a
Resolution, required respondent
Avance to comment within 10days
from notice. Respondent, however,
failed to do so.
 Subsequently, the Courrt reiterated
the directive but respondent still
failed to comply despite notice.
Hence, in a Resolution, respondent
was found guilty of indirect
contempt and was ordered to pay a
fine which respondent also failed to
do so.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Avance should be
disbarred?
RULING: Respondent Avance is disbarred
for gross misconduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders fo a superior
court.
As an officer of the Court, it is a lawyer’s
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of
the Court. The Highest form of respect for
judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s
obedience to court orders and processes.
The Court have held that failure to comply
with Court directives constitutes gross
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect
which merits a lawyer’s suspension or even
disbarment.
Respondent’s attitude in repeatedly
ignoring orders of the SC constitutes utter
disrespect to the Judicial institution.
Respondent’s conduct indicates a high
degree or irresponsibility. A Court’s
Resolution is not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately, or selectively.
Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply
with the Court’s orders not only betrays
recalcitrant flaw in her character, it also
underscores her disrespect of the Court;s
lawful orders which is only too deserving of
reproof.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the ROC, a
member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from office as an attorney for
gross misconduct and/or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court.
18. GEMINA v MADAMBA
DOCTRINE:
The IBP cannot inquire into whether the
complainant is an heir of the registered
owner of the land. It is not within its
authority to determine whether the
complainant has a legal right to the
properties involved in the transactions and
to require her to submit proof to that effect.
Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers,
and it cannot determine issues of law and
facts regarding the parties’ legal rights to a
dispute.
A notary public exercises duties calling for
carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must
inform themselves of the facts they certify
to; most importantly, they should not take
part or allow themselves to be part of illegal
transactions.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires every lawyer to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land, and promote respect for the law
and legal processes. The Notarial Law and
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
moreover, require a duly commissioned
notary public to make the proper entries in
his Notarial Register and to refrain from
committing any dereliction or any act which
may serve as cause for the revocation of his
commission or the imposition of
administrative sanctions.
FACTS:
 Allegedly, Complainant is an heir of the
registered owner of several parcels of land
 located in Laoag City.2 These parcels of land
were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in
connivance with the respondent. The
documents pertaining to the transactions
over these lands were notarized by the
respondent either without the presence of
the affiants or with their forged signatures.
The documents the complainant referred to
were:
 Waiver of Rights & Interest;
 Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee;
 Deed of Adjudication & Sale;
 Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and
 Deed of Absolute Sale.
 In his Comments and Compliance , the
respondent admitted the complainant’s
allegations on the notarization of the
subject documents, but denied any
participation in the sale and transfer of the
lands covered by the documents. He
claimed that it was his secretary who
prepared and drafted the documents. He
claimed that his only participation was to
affix his signature on the documents. He
apologized and committed himself not to
repeat these misdeeds.
 In a resolution the case was referred to the
IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
 In the position paper she submitted to the
IBP, the complainant reiterated her charges
against the respondent. The respondent
likewise reiterated in his position paper10
his explanations contained in his comment
submitted to this Court. The Commissioner
–in-charge of the case submitted to the IBP
Board of Governors her Report and
Recommendation, recommending the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit,
finding that no documentary evidence was
presented to support the same. She
insisted that respondent notarized
documents without the appearance before
him of the persons who executed the same,
but no clear and sufficient evidence was
also presented. The report was adopted
and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors. Hence, this appeal
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
RULING: The court disagree with the
findings of Commissioner Maala for the
following reasons: First, the IBP cannot
inquire into whether the complainant is an
heir of the registered owner of the land. It is
not within its authority to determine
whether the complainant has a legal right to
the properties involved in the transactions
and to require her to submit proof to that
effect. Its function is limited to disciplining
lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of
law and facts regarding the parties’ legal
rights to a dispute. Second, from the
respondent’s own admissions, it cannot be
doubted that he is guilty of the charges
against him. His admissions show that he
had notarized documents without reading
them and without ascertaining what the
documents purported to be. He had
completely entrusted to his secretary the
keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial
Register. This eventually resulted in
inaccuracies in the entry of the notarial acts
in his Notarial Register.
The IBP resolution, based wholly on
Commissioner Maala’s Report and
Recommendation, totally missed and
disregarded the submitted evidence and the
respondent’s testimony during the hearing
of the complaint. The IBP apparently had
treated the respondent with exceptional
leniency. The respondent’s age and sickness
cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the
serious lapses he committed in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer and as
a notary public. The inaccuracies in his
Notarial Register entries and his failure to
enter the documents that he admittedly
notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a
notary public. He cannot escape liability by
putting the blame on his secretary. The
lawyer himself, not merely his secretary,
should be held accountable for these
misdeeds.
 A notary public exercises duties calling
for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries
must inform themselves of the facts they
certify to; most importantly, they should not
take part or allow themselves to be part of
illegal transactions.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires every lawyer to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land, and promote respect for the law
and legal processes. The Notarial Law and
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
moreover, require a duly commissioned
notary public to make the proper entries in
his Notarial Register and to refrain from
committing any dereliction or any act which
may serve as cause for the revocation of his
commission or the imposition of
administrative sanctions.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, the respondent’s failure to make
the proper entry or entries in his Notarial
Register of his notarial acts, his failure to
require the presence of a principal at the
time of the notarial acts, and his failure to
identify a principal on the basis of personal
knowledge by competent evidence are
grounds for the revocation of a lawyer’s
commission as a notary public.
19. CAALIM-VERZONILLA v PASCUA
DOCTRINE:
With his admission that he drafted and
notarized another instrument that did not
state the true consideration of the sale so as
to reduce the capital gains and other taxes
due on the transaction, respondent cannot
escape liability for making an untruthful
statement in a public document for an
unlawful purpose. As the second deed
indicated an amount much lower than the
actual price paid for the property sold,
respondent abetted in depriving the
Government of the right to collect the
correct taxes due. His act clearly violated
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
 Petitioner’s Arguments:
o Before the Court is the verified
affidavit-complaint1 of Pacita
Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty.
Victoriano G. Pascua for
allegedly falsifying a public
document and evading the
payment of correct taxes
through the use of falsified
documents.
o Complainant alleges that on
September 15, 2001, respondent
prepared and notarized two
Deeds of Extra Judicial
Settlement of the Estate of
Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale.
o Complainant alleges that both
deeds are spurious because all
the heirs’ signatures were
falsified. She contends that her
sister Marivinia does not know
how to sign her name and was
confined at the Cagayan Valley
Medical Center as she was
diagnosed of Substance
Induced Psychosis and
Schizophrenia since May 3,
1999. This fact was supported by
a certificate dated February 6,
2004 signed by Dr. Alice
Anghad.
o Complainant further alleges that
the two deeds were not
presented to any of them and
they came to know of their
existence only recently.
o She further claims that the
Community Tax Certificates
(CTCs) in her name and in the
names of her mother and her
sister Marivinia were procured
only by the vendee Shirley and
not by them.
 Respondent’s Arguments:
o Respondent admits having
prepared and notarized the two
 disputed Deeds of Extra Judicial
Settlement of the Estate with
Sale (subject deeds) but denies
any irregularity in their
execution.
o In the morning of September
15, 2001, complainant, Caridad,
Virginia and Shirley Mipanga
went to his house and
requested him to prepare a
deed of sale of a residential lot
located in Claveria, Cagayan.
The agreed purchase price was
at Php 1,000,000.00
o Upon the presence of witnesses,
the instrument was ratified by
the involved parties and he then
notarized the document (Php
1,000,000.00).
o When Shirley found out that she
had to pay all the unpaid land
taxes, including capital tax gains,
documentary stamp taxes and
estate taxes to the BIR which
would all result to an enormous
amount (because of the 1M
consideration of the sale), she
offered to pay one half of
whatever amount the BIR will
assess, but Caridad insisted that
another document be prepared
stating a reduced selling price of
only Php 250,000.00 so that they
need not contribute to the
payment of taxes since Shirley
was anyway already willing to
pay one half of the taxes based
on the selling price stated in the
first deed.
o A second deed was later
executed with the consideration
of only Php 250,000.00. It must
be noted that respondent used
the same document number,
page number and book number
in the notarial portion as the
first deed because according to
him, the second deed was
intended by the parties to
supplant the first.
o Respondent denies
complainant’s assertions that
the two deeds are simulated
and falsified, averring that as
stated above, all the parties
acknowledged the same before
him.
o As to the allegation that
Marivinia did not appear before
him as she was allegedly under
confinement at the Cagayan
Valley Medical Center on
September 15, 2001, respondent
cites a medical certificate stating
that Marivinia was confined in
said hospital from May 3, 1999
to August 10, 1999. He also
points out that Marivinia is one
of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
2836-S pending before the RTC,
Branch 12, Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan, for the annulment of
the subject deeds, and nothing
in the complaint states that she
is mentally.
 IBP’s Report and Recommendation:
o IBP found respondent
administratively liable on
account of his indispensable
participation in an act designed
to defraud the government. He
recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice
of law for three months and that
his notarial commission, if still
existing, be revoked and that he
be prohibited from being
commissioned as a notary
public for two years.
o IBP board of governor’s
adopted the report of the
commissioner but imposed a
higher penalty which is a
suspension of two years from
the practice of law and
 suspension of his notarial
commission.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pascua is administratively
liable for participating in an act designed to
defraud the government?
RULING: Respondent did not deny
preparing and notarizing the subject deeds.
He avers that the true consideration for the
transaction is P1,000,000 as allegedly agreed
upon by the parties when they appeared
before him for the preparation of the first
document as well as the notarization
thereof. He then claimed to have been
"moved by his humane and compassionate
disposition" when he acceded to the parties’
plea that he prepare and notarize the
second deed with a lower consideration of
P250,000 in order to reduce the
corresponding tax liability. However, as
noted by Commissioner Fernando, the two
deeds were used by respondent and his
client as evidence in a judicial proceeding
(Civil Case No. 2671-S), which only meant
that both documents still subsist and hence
contrary to respondent’s contention that the
second deed reflecting a lower
consideration was intended to supersede
the first deed.
With his admission that he drafted and
notarized another instrument that did not
state the true consideration of the sale so as
to reduce the capital gains and other taxes
due on the transaction, respondent cannot
escape liability for making an untruthful
statement in a public document for an
unlawful purpose. As the second deed
indicated an amount much lower than the
actual price paid for the property sold,
respondent abetted in depriving the
Government of the right to collect the
correct taxes due. His act clearly violated
Rule 1.02, 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.
Xxxx
Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Not only did respondent assist the
contracting parties in an activity aimed at
defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of
respect for and made a mockery of the
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By
notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document,
he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face,
which it obviously does not deserve considering
its nature and purpose.
As to the charge of falsification of
documents, the Court finds that the documents
annexed to the present complaint are
insufficient to render a judgment.
With regard to the respondent’s notarial act,
he proceeded to notarize the second deed
despite knowledge of its illegal purpose. His
purported desire to accommodate the request
of his client will not absolve respondent, who as
member of the legal profession, should have
stood his ground and not yielded to the
importunings of his clients. Respondent should
have been more prudent and remained steadfast
in his solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any.
HELD: WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY.
VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years. In addition, his present notarial
commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is
DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary
public for a period of two (2) years. He is further
WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.
20. BACULI v BATTUNG
DOCTRINE:
 A lawyer who insulted a judge inside
a courtroom completely disregards
the latter’s role, stature and position
in our justice system.
  Canon 11- A lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due the
courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by
others.
 Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
 These actions were not only against
the person, the position and the
stature of Judge Baculi, but against
the court as well whose proceedings
were openly and flagrantly
disrupted by him. He publicly
berated and brazenly threatened
Judge Baculi that he would file a
case for gross ignorance of the law
against him.
FACTS:
 During a hearing, respondent lawyer
acted disrespectfully by shouting
while arguing his motion. Petitioner
judge had advised respondent to
tone down his voice but respondent
lawyer consistently kept shouting,
even when he was warned that he
would be cited for direct contempt.
 Eventually, respondent lawyer was
cited for direct contempt and
ordered to pay a fine and left.
However, while the other cases were
being heard, respondent lawyer re-
entered the court and shouted
threats against petitioner judge.
 Respondent lawyer was escorted out
of the courtroom and was again
cited for direct contempt.
Respondent lawyer also uttered the
same lines when he saw petitioner
judge at the hall of the courthouse
and even challenged the latter to a
fight. He was then escorted out of
the building.
 IBP Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – found respondent
lawyer guilty of the
allegations, despite his claim
that he was provoked by
petitioner judge.
Furthermore, respondent
lawyer, failed to observe
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
CPR
 IBP Board of Governors adopts
and approve the report and
recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer is guilty of
violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the CPR?
RULING: Yes, he violated Rule 11.03, Canon
11 of the CPR. The CPR provides:
Canon 11- A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.
He disrespected Judge Baculi by
shouting at him inside the courtroom during
a court proceeding in the presence of
litigants and their counsels, and court
personnel. He even came back to harass
Judge Baculi. He continued to threaten
Judge Baculi and acted in a manner that
showed disrespect for his position even after
the latter had cited him for contempt. After
initially leaving the court, he returned to the
courtroom and disrupted the ongoing
proceedings.
These actions were not only against the
person, the position and the stature of
Judge Baculi, but against the court as well
whose proceedings were openly and
flagrantly disrupted by him. He publicly
berated and brazenly threatened Judge
Baculi that he would file a case for gross
ignorance of the law against him.
Atty. Batung acted in a manner tending
to erode the public confidence in Judge
Baculi’s competence. Incompetence is a
matter that, even if true, must be handled
 with sensitivity in the manner provided
under the ROC, a complaining lawyer cannot
act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad
light and bring the justice system into
disrepute. Atty. Batung’s violationg are
serious as they were committed in the
courtroom in the course of judicial
proceedings where he was acting as an
officer of the court, and before the litigating
public, his actions were plainly disrespectful
to Judge Baculi and to the court, to the
point of being scandalous and offensive to
the integrity of the judicial system itself.
HELD: Therefore, Atty. Melchor A. Battung is
guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
CPR. He is suspended from the practice of law
for 1 year and sternly warned that a repetition of
a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
21. ESPINOSA v OMAÑA
DOCTRINE:
This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial
dissolution of the conjugal partnership
without judicial approval is void. The Court
has also ruled that a notary public should
not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage
and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially
dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is
exactly what Omaña did in this case.
FACTS:
 In 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena
Marantal sought Omaña’s legal advice
on whether they could legally live
separately and dissolve their marriage.
 Omaña then prepared a document
entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.
Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced
of the validity of the contract dissolving
their marriage, started implementing its
terms and conditions. However,
Marantal eventually took custody of all
their children and took possession of
most of the property they acquired
during their union.
 Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow
employee, complainant Glindo, a law
graduate, who informed him that the
contract executed by Omaña was not
valid.
 Espinosa and Glindo then hired the
services of a lawyer to file a complaint
against Omaña before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
 IBP-CBD stated that Espinosa’s
desistance did not put an end to the
proceedings. The IBP-CBD found that
Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
 The IBP-CBD recommended that
Omaña be suspended for one year from
the practice of law and for two years as
a notary public. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer violated the
Canon of Professional Responsibility in the
notarization of Marantal and Espinosa’s
Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay?
RULING: This Court has ruled that the
extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal
partnership without judicial approval is void.
The Court has also ruled that a notary public
should not facilitate the disintegration of a
marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially
dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is
exactly what Omaña did in this case.
In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza, he Court cited a
number of cases where the lawyer was
sanctioned for notarizing similar documents as
the contract in this case, such as:
– notarizing a document between the
spouses which permitted the husband to
take a concubine and allowed the wife to
live with another man, without opposition
from each other;
 – ratifying a document entitled ‚Legal
Separation‛ where the couple agreed to be
separated from each other mutually and
voluntarily, renouncing their rights and
obligations, authorizing each other to
remarry, and renouncing any action that
they might have against each other;
– preparing a document authorizing a
married couple who had been separated for
nine years to marry again, renouncing the
right of action which each may have against
the other; and
– preparing a document declaring the
conjugal partnership dissolved.
We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was
her part-time office staff who notarized the
contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that
Omaña herself notarized the contract. Even if it
were true that it was her part-time staff who
notarized the contract, it only showed Omaña’s
negligence in doing her notarial duties.
HELD: