12. Tumbaga vs Atty. Teoxon A.C. No.
respondent and complainant seated
5573, Nov. 21, 2017
Facts:
Complainant met respondent sometime
in September 1999. He was then the City
Legal Officer of Naga City from whom
complainant sought legal advice.
Thereafter respondent visited her often
at her residence and brought gifts for her
son.
Complainant became pregnant. After the
birth of their son, Billy John, respondent
spent more time with them.
After Billy John was baptized,
complainant secured a Certificate of Live
Birth from the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Naga City and gave it to
respondent to sign. He hesitantly signed
it and volunteered to facilitate its filing.
After respondent failed to file the same,
complainant secured another form and
asked respondent to sign it twice. Thus,
the Certificate of Live Birth was
registered.
Respondent compelled her to resign from
her work, assuring her that he would
take care of her financial needs. As
respondent failed to fulfill his promise,
complainant sought assistance from the
Office of the City Fiscal in Naga City.
Re s p o n d e n t g a v e c o m p l a i n a n t a n
affidavit of support and told her there
was no need for him to appear in the
conference. Complainant showed the
affidavit to Fiscal Mampo, but the latter
advised her to have the respondent sign
the affidavit again.
To c o r r o b o r a t e h e r a l l e g a t i o n s ,
complainant attached the following
documents to her complaint, among
others: (a) pictures showing respondent
lying in a bed holding Billy John,
respondent holding Billy John in a beach
setting, complainant holding Billy John in
a beach setting,5 respondent holding
Billy . John in a house setting, 6 and
beside each other in a restaurant7; (b)
the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John
with an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/
A d m i s s i o n o f Pa t e r n i t y s h o w i n g
respondent's signature; (c) the affidavit
of support executed by respondent; (d)
the promissory note executed by
respondent; (e) the police blotter
entry11 dated September 9, 2001; and (f)
copies of pleading showing the signature
of respondent.
In his answer, respondent denied that he
lived together with complainant at the
Puncia Apartment. As complainant was
his kumadre, he would pass by her house
whenever he visited the house of
Representative Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr.
Respondent was then a member of
Representative Roco's legislative staff.
Respondent accused complainant of
taking the pictures in order to use the
same to extort money from him.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Teoxon
is guilty in having an illicit affair with the
complainant?
Held:
Yes, respondent committed gross
immorality by having an illicit affair
with another woman.
The good moral conduct or character
must be possessed by lawyers at the time
of their application for admission to the
Bar, and must be maintained until
retirement from the practice of law.
Accordingly, it is expected that every
lawyer, being an officer of the Court,
must not only be in fact of good moral
character, but must also be seen to be of
good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. More
specifically, a member of the Bar and
officer of the Court is required not only
to refrain from adulterous relationships
or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing
the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards.

One of the key pieces of evidence that

the IBP considered in ruling against
respondent is the Decision of the MTCC of
Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 for
replevin.

In said case, [MTCC] is not persuaded by

his allegation that he left his bag with
[complainant] because he was in a hurry
in going to Manila. He boldly declared in
[the trial court] that he has three
residences in Naga City and of all places
he had to leave his shirt and underwear
with a lady whom he had visited "only
twice".

While the issues in the replevin case and

the instant administrative case are
indeed different, they share a common
factual backdrop, i.e., the parties'
contrasting account of the true nature of
their relationship. Complainant further
attached pictures of respondent with her
and Billy John as proof of their romantic
relations. A perusal of these pictures
convinces this Court that while the same
cannot indeed prove Billy John's
p a t e r n i t y, t h e y a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s
indicative of a relationship between
complainant and respondent that is more
than merely platonic.
Unfortunately, respondent failed to prove
his defense when the burden of evidence
shifted to him. He could neither provide
any concrete corroboration of his denials
in this case nor satisfactorily prove his
claim that complainant was merely
extorting money from him.

Court finds respondent Atty. Manuel P.

Teoxon GUILTY of gross immorality and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) years.
13. MICHELLE YAP, Complainant,
- v e r s u s - AT T Y. G R A C E C . B U R I ,
Respondent. A.C. No. 11156, SECOND
DIVISION, March 19, 2018, PERALTA, J.
FACTS:
The foregoing canons require of a lawyer
to endure a high sense of responsibility
and good fidelity in all their dealings and
emphasize the high standard of honesty
and fairness expected of them, not only
in the practice of the legal profession,
but in their personal dealings as well.
Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for
any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private
capacity, if such conduct renders them
unfit to continue to be officers of the
court.
FACTS:
Complainant Michelle Yap was the vendor
in a contract of sale of a condominium
unit, while Atty. Grace C. Buri, Yap's
close friend and her daughter's
godmother, was the vendee. Buri made
an offer to purchase the property but
asked for the reduction of the price.
After consulting with her husband, Yap
agreed. Of the total amount of purchase
price of P1,200,000.00, P200,000.00
remains unpaid; Buri insisted that she
would just pay the balance on
installment but without specifying the
amount to be paid on each installment.
Because she trusted the respondent, Yap
gave Buri the full and immediate
possession of the condominium unit
despite the outstanding balance.
However, when Yap finally asked for the
balance, Buri said she would pay it on a
monthly installment of P5,000.00 until
fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said
she would just cancel the sale.
Thereafter, Buri also started threatening
her through text messages, and then
later onfiled a case for estafa against
her. Yap then filed an administrative
complaint against Buri for the alleged
false accusations against her. When
ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed
to comply. She did not even appear
during the mandatory conference.
ISSUE:
Whether the fact that what is involved is
a personal dealing of a lawyer is material
to the suspension from the practice of
law. (NO)
RULING:
Buri's persistent refusal to pay her
obligation despite frequent demands
clearly reflects her lack of integrity and
moral soundness; she took advantage of
her knowledge of the law and clearly
resorted to threats and intimidation in
order to get away with what she wanted,
constituting a gross v iolation of
professional ethics and a betrayal of
public confidence in the legal
profession.
Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's
Oath that enjoins her to support the
Constitution and obey the laws. She
forgot that she must not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit nor
give aid nor consent to the same. She
also took for granted the express
commands of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7
of the CPR.
The foregoing canons require of Buri, as
a lawyer, an enduring high sense of
responsibility and good fidelity in all her
dealings and emphasize the high standard
of honesty and fairness expected of her,
not only in the practice of the legal
profession, but in her personal dealings
as well. Thus, lawyers may be
disciplined for any conduct, whether in
their professional or in their private
capacity, if such conduct renders them
unfit to continue to be officers of the
court.

That Buri's act involved a private dealing

with Yap is immaterial. Her being a
lawyer calls for - whether she was acting
as such or in a non-professional capacity
- the obligation to exhibit good faith,
fairness and candor in her relationship
with others. There is no question that a
lawyer could be disciplined not only for
a malpractice in his profession, but also
for any misconduct committed outside
of his professional capacity. Buri's being
a lawyer demands that she conduct
herself as a person of the highest moral
and professional integrity and probity in
her dealings with
others.
14. OLIVER FABUGAIS, Complainant,
-versus- ATTY. BERARDO C. FAUNDO
JR., Respondent. A.C. No. 10145, FIRST
DIVISION, June 11, 2018, DEL CASTILLO,
J.
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as
that conduct which is so willful,
flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
This Court has held that for such conduct
to warrant disciplinary action, the same
must be "grossly immoral, that is, it
must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree."
It is not easy to state with accuracy what
constitutes "grossly immoral conduct,"
let alone what constitutes the moral
delinquency and obliquity that renders a
lawyer unfit or unworthy to continue as
a member of the bar in good standing.
In the present case, going by the
eyewitness testimony of complainant's
daughter Marie Nicole, raw or explicit
sexual immorality between respondent
lawyer and complainant's wife was not
established as a matter of fact. Indeed,
to borrow the IBP IC’s remark: "[o]ne
would need to inject a bit of imagination
to create an image or something sexual."
That said, it can in no wise or manner be
argued that respondent lawyer's behavior
was par for the course for members of
the legal profession. Lawyers are
mandated to do honor to the bar at all
times and to help maintain the respect
of the community for the legal
profession under all circumstances.
The acts complained of in this case might
not be grossly or starkly immoral in its
rawness or coarseness, but they were
without doubt condemnable. Respondent
lawyer who made avowals to being a
respectable father to three children, and
also to being a respected leader of his
community apparently had no qualms or
scruples about being seen sleeping in his
own bed with another man's wife, his
arms entwined in tender embrace with
the latter. Respondent lawyer's claim
that he was inspired by nothing but the
best of intentions in inviting another
married man's wife and her 10-year old
daughter to sleep with him in the same
bed so that the three of them could
enjoy good night's rest in his
airconditioned chamber, reeks with racy,
ribald humor.
FACTS:
This is a Complaint filed by complainant
Oliver Fabugais (complainant) against
Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. (respondent
lawyer), for gross misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for
having allegedly engaged in illicit and
immoral relations with his wife,
AnnalizaLizel B. Fabugais (Annaliza).
In her SinumpaangSalaysay, then 10-year
old girl Marie Nicole Fabugais (Marie
Nicole), daughter of complainant,
alleged that sometime in October 2006,
she, along with her mother, Annaliza, Ate
Mimi (Michelle Lagasca), and a certain
Ate Ada (Ada Marie Campos), stayed in a
house in Ipil, Zamboanga-Sibugay, that
belonged to respondent lawyer, whom
Marie Nicole referred to as "Tito
Attorney." She narrated that respondent
lawyer slept in the same bed with her
and her mother and that she saw
respondent lawyer embracing her mother
while they were sleeping.
Marie Nicole further recounted that the
next morning, while she was watching
television along with her mother, Ate
Mimi and Ate Ada, respondent lawyer
who just had a shower, and clad only in a
towel or "tapis," suddenly entered the
room; that she (Marie Nicole) along with
her Ate Mimi and her Ate Ada, were told
to step outside the room (either by
respondent lawyer, or by her mother
Annaliza), while her mother and
respondent lawyer remained inside the
room.
Because of these developments,
complainant filed a case for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Annaliza, with prayer for the
custody of their minor children. In said
case, respondent lawyer entered his
appearance as collaborating counsel for
Annaliza.
Complainant moreover narrated that, on
February 17, 2007, while he was driving
his motorcycle along the San Jose Road in
Baliwasan, Zamboanga City, respondent
lawyer, who was then riding in tandem in
another motorcycle with his own driver,
slowed down next to him (complainant)
and yelled at him angrily, "Nah, cosa
man?!" ("So, what now?!"); that he
(complainant) also noticed that
respondent lawyer kept following and
shouting at him (complainant), and even
challenged him to a fistfight, and
threatened to kill him. Complainant
further alleged that respondent lawyer
also harassed his sister on February 27,
2007 by chasing and trailing after her car.
In his Answer, respondent lawyer denied
that he had had any immoral relations
with Annaliza. He claimed that he was
merely assisting Annaliza in her
tempestuous court battle with
complainant for custody of her children.
Respondent lawyer asserted that when
Marie Nicole's maternal grandmother, Ma.
Eglinda L. Bantoto, sought out his help in
this case, he told them that they could
hide in his (respondent lawyer's) parents'
house in Ipil.
Respondent lawyer claimed that the
cordial relationship he had had with
Annaliza could be traced to her being the
stepdaughter of his (respondent lawyer's)
late uncle, and also to her having been
his former student at the Western
Mindanao State University in Zamboanga
City. Respondent lawyer insisted that he
was incapable of committing the
misconduct imputed to him for three
simple reasons to wit: because he is a
good father to his three children,
because he is a respected civic leader,
and because he had never been the
subject even of a complaint with the
police. He claimed that complainant filed
the instant complaint simply "to harass
him from practicing his legitimate
profession, and for no other reason."
IBP Investigating Commissioner (IBP IC)
noted that on the accusation that
respondent lawyer had chased
complainant in his motorcycle on
February 17, 2007, this accusation had
not been fully substantiated with
convincing evidence. He opined that
"there [was] doubt as to whether the
incident did occur with the [respondent
lawyer's] presence and participation.
[Since] the motorcycles were moving fast
and the parties were wearing helmets[,
the] identity of respondent [lawyer]
could not be [categorically] established."
He likewise found no sufficient evidence
to establish that respondent lawyer
harassed complainant's sister.
However, the IBP IC found respondent
lawyer to have acted inappropriately
with Annaliza which created the
appearance of immorality thus guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and
recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) month. IBP
Board of Governors adopted and
approved the findings and
recommendation of the IBP IC.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent lawyer in fact
commit acts that are grossly immoral, or
acts that amount to serious moral
depravity, that would warrant or call for
his disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. (YES)
RULING:
YES. SC rejects respondent lawyer's
highly implausible defense that the
complainant filed the instant case for no
other reason but simply "to harass him
from practicing his legitimate
profession." There is absolutely nothing
in the record to support it.
It bears stressing that this case can
proceed in spite of complainant's death
and the apparent lack of interest on the
part of complainant's heirs. Disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis in nature; they are intended and
undertaken primarily to look into the
conduct or behavior of lawyers, to
determine whether they are still fit to
exercise the privileges of the legal
profession, and to hold them accountable
for any misconduct or misbehavior which
deviates from the mandated norms and
standards of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, all of which are needful
and necessary to the preservation of the
integrity of the legal profession. Because
not chiefly or primarily intended to
administer punishment, such proceedings
do not call for the active service of
prosecutors.
The Court agrees with the IBP's findings
that the evidence presented by
complainant upon chasing incident was
insufficient to establish the fact that
respondent lawyer had committed the
alleged acts against the complainant and
his sister.
Now, for the alleged immoral acts by
respondent lawyer. "Immoral conduct"
has been defined as that conduct which
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the
community. This Court has held that for
such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, the same must be "grossly
immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt
and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree."
It is not easy to state with accuracy what
constitutes "grossly immoral conduct," let
alone what constitutes the moral
delinquency and obliquity that renders a
lawyer unfit or unworthy to continue as a
member of the bar in good standing.
In the present case, going by the
eyewitness testimony of complainant's
daughter Marie Nicole, raw or explicit
sexual immorality between respondent
lawyer and complainant's wife was not
established as a matter of fact. Indeed,
to borrow the IBP IC’s remark: "[o]ne
would need to inject a bit of imagination
to create an image or something sexual."
That said, it can in no wise or manner be
argued that respondent lawyer's behavior
was par for the course for members of
the legal profession. Lawyers are
mandated to do honor to the bar at all
times and to help maintain the respect of
the community for the legal profession
under all circumstances.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility further provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or
 private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
"There is perhaps no profession after that
of the sacred ministry in which a high-
toned morality is more imperative than
that of the law." As officers of the court,
lawyers must in fact and in truth be of
good moral character. They must
moreover also be seen or appear to be of
good moral character; and be seen or
appear to – live a life in accordance with
the highest moral standards of the
community. Members of the bar can ill-
afford to exhibit any conduct which tends
to lessen in any degree the confidence of
the public in the fidelity, the honesty,
and the integrity of the legal profession.
The Courts require adherence to these
lofty precepts because any thoughtless or
ill-considered actions or actuations by
any member of the Bar can irreversibly
undermine public confidence in the law
and, consequently, those who practice it.
The acts complained of in this case might
not be grossly or starkly immoral in its
rawness or coarseness, but they were
without doubt condemnable. Respondent
lawyer who made avowals to being a
respectable father to three children, and
also to being a respected leader of his
community apparently had no qualms or
scruples about being seen sleeping in his
own bed with another man's wife, his
arms entwined in tender embrace with
the latter. Respondent lawyer's claim that
he was inspired by nothing but the best
of intentions in inviting another married
man's wife and her 10- year old daughter
to sleep with him in the same bed so that
the three of them could enjoy good
night's rest in his airconditioned chamber,
reeks with racy, ribald humor.
In deciding, upon the appropriate
sanction to be imposed upon respondent
lawyer in this case, this Court is ever
mindful that administrative disciplinary
proceedings are essentially designed to
protect the administration of justice and
that this lofty ideal can be attained by
requiring that those who are honored by
the title "Attorney" and counsel or at law
are men and women of undoubted
competence, unimpeachable integrity
and undiminished professionalism, men
and women in whom courts and clients
may repose confidence. This Court
moreover realizes only too well that the
power to disbar or suspend members of
the bar ought always to be exercised not
in a spirit of spite, hostility or
vindictiveness, but on the preservative
and corrective principle, with a view to
safeguarding the purity of the legal
profession. Hence, that power can be
summoned only in the service of the most
c o m p e l l i n g d u t y, w h i c h m u s t b e
performed, in light of incontrovertible
evidence of grave misconduct, which
seriously taints the reputation and
character of the lawyer as an officer of
the court and as member of the Bar. It
goes without saying moreover that it
should not be exercised or asserted when
a lesser penalty or sanction would
accomplish the end desired. The Court
believes that a one-month suspension
f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w, a s
recommended by the IBP, would suffice.
15. JILDO A. GUBATON, complainant,
-versus- ATTY. AUGUSTUS SERFAIN D.
AMADOR, respondent.
A.C. No. 8962, SECOND DIVISION, July 9,
2018, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, it should be clarified that while
the information supplied by complainant
and Bernadette's house helper and
secretary about the alleged illicit affair
constitute hearsay, the same should not
be completely disregarded.
In Re: Verified Complaint of Umali, Jr.
v. Hernandez: It was emphasized that
to satisfy the substantial evidence
requirement for administrative cases,
hearsay evidence should necessarily be
supplemented and corroborated by
other evidence that are not hearsay.
Given that the purported hearsay are
supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence that are not hearsay, the Court
finds no cogent reason not to apply the
same pronouncement to this particular
case.
Based on jurisprudence, extramarital
affairs of lawyers are regarded as
offensive to the sanctity of marriage,
the family, and the community. When
lawyers are engaged in wrongful
relationships that blemish their ethics
and morality, the usual recourse is for
the erring attorney's suspension from the
practice of law, if not disbarment. This is
because possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent
and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession.
FACTS
Complainant alleged that respondent,
was having an illicit romantic
relationship with his wife, Bernadette.
He averred that while working in the
USA, when he discovered the illicit
relationship. Complainant’s house helper
informed him through a phone call that a
man whom she knows to be "Fiscal
Amador" often visits Bernadette. The
house helper also told him that
respondent spends nights at their house
and stays with Bernadette in their
bedroom. When complainant called
Bernadette's dental clinic to verify the
information, it was the secretary who
took his call. Upon inquiry, the latter
confirmed that respondent and
Bernadette have been carrying on an
illicit affair.
Complainant returned to the country. He
alleged that Bernadette wrote love
letters to respondent. Complainant
likewise alleged that he personally saw
respondent and Bernadette together in
various places. At one instance, he saw
them kissing while inside a vehicle; when
he approached to confront them,
respondent ran away. The illicit affair of
respondent and Bernadette was known to
other people as well.
In defense, respondent denied all the
allegations against him. He claimed that
he was merely acquainted with
Bernadette and they would only see each
other on various occasions and social
gatherings.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending the dismissal of the
affidavit-complaint for insufficiency of
evidence and that the information
supplied by the complainant, the house
helper, and the clinic secretary were
purely hearsay. However, the IBP Board
of Governors reversed the Report and
Recommendation, and instead suspended
responded from the practice of law for 2
years.
ISSUE
Whether or not grounds exist to hold
respondent administratively liable. (YES)
RULING
Respondent should be held
administratively liable. In this case,
substantial evidence exist to prove
complainant's claim that respondent had
illicit affairs with Bernadette and hence,
should be adjudged guilty of gross
immorality.
As per complainant's own account, he
actually saw respondent and Bernadette
together on various intimate occasions.
In fact, he attempted to confront them
at one time when he saw them kissing
inside a vehicle, although respondent
was able to evade him. The Court is
inclined to believe that complainant's
imputations against respondent are
credible, considering that he had no ill
motive to accuse respondent of such a
serious charge — much more a personal
scandal involving his own wife — unless
the same were indeed true.
Moreover, complainant's sister, described
to complainant that while the latter was
in the USA, respondent would often visit
Bernadette and spend the night in their
residence and likewise recounted that
whenever the two of them arrived home
in one vehicle, they would kiss each
other before alighting therefrom.
Finally, it should be clarified that while
the information supplied by complainant
and Bernadette's house helper and
Bernadette's clinic secretary about the
alleged illicit affair constitute hearsay,
the same should not be completely
disregarded. In Re: Verified Complaint
of Umali, Jr. v. Hernandez: It was
emphasized that to satisfy the
substantial evidence requirement for
administrative cases, hearsay evidence
should necessarily be supplemented
and corroborated by other evidence
that are not hearsay.
Given that the purported hearsay are
supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence that are not hearsay, the Court
finds no cogent reason not to apply the
same pronouncement to this particular
case.
For his part, respondent only proffered a
bare denial of the imputed affair. He
insists that he was merely acquainted
with Bernadette and that they would
only see each other during social
gatherings or by pure accident. The
thrust of his denial was that, although
they would see each other on occasion,
such meetings were innocent. Suffice it
to say that "denial is an intrinsically
weak defense. In any event, the Court
observes that the alleged "accidental"
and "innocent" encounters of respondent
and Bernadette are much too many for
comfort and coincidence. Such
encounters actually buttress the
allegations of the witnesses that they
carried on an illicit affair. All told, the
Court finds that substantial evidence —
which only entail "evidence to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally
reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise" — exist to prove complainant's
accusation of gross immorality against
respondent.
Based on jurisprudence, extramarital
affairs of lawyers are regarded as
offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the
family, and the community. When lawyers
are engaged in wrongful relationships
that blemish their ethics and morality,
the usual recourse is for the erring
attorney's suspension from the practice
of law, if not disbarment. This is because
possession of good moral character is
both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession.
U n d e r t h e C o d e o f Pr o f e s s i o n a l
Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the
activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.

The Court sees fit to impose on

respondent a penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year.
31. DIONNIE RICAFORT vs. ATTY. RENE
O. MEDINA (A.C. No. 5179, May 31,
2016)
FACTS:
*The Complainant alleged his tricycle
sideswiped respondent's car along Sarvida
Street in Surigao City. Respondent
alighted from his car and confronted
complainant. Respondent allegedly
snapped at complainant, saying: "Wa ka
makaila sa aka?" ("Do you not know me?")
Re s p o n d e n t p r o c e e d e d t o s l a p
complainant, and then left. Manuel
Cuizon, a traffic aide, informed
complainant of the plate number of
respondent's car. Complainant later
learned that the driver of the car was the
provincial board member of Surigao del
Norte.
The complainant alleged that
respondent's act showed arrogance and
disrespect for his oath of office as a
lawyer. Complainant alleged that this act
constituted gross misconduct.
*A letter signed by Mayor Arlencita E.
Navarro (Mayor Navarro), League of
Mayors President of Surigao del Norte
Chapter said that the respondent slapped
complainant and caused him great
humiliation. Thus, respondent should be
administratively penalized for his gross
misconduct and abuse of authority.
Attached to Mayor Navarro's letter were
two (2) pages containing the signatures
of 19 Mayors of different municipalities
in Surigao Del Norte.
*In his Report IBP Commissioner De La
Rama recommended the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for
60 days from notice for misconduct and
violation of Canon 7, Rule 7 .03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The
Commissioner found that contrary to
respondent's claim, there was indeed a
slapping incident.
*The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors issued the Resolution
adopting and approving with modification
Commissioner De La Rama's
recommendation as to the suspension (30
days).
ISSUE: Whether respondent shall be held
administratively liable
HELD: Yes. He shall be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for three (3) months.
It is true that this Court does not tolerate
the unceremonious use of disciplinary
proceedings to harass its officers with
baseless allegations. This Court will
exercise its disciplinary power against its
officers only if allegations of misconduct
are established. A lawyer is presumed to
be innocent of the charges against him or
her. He or she enjoys the presumption
that his or her acts are consistent with
his or her oath. Thus, the burden of proof
still rests upon complainant to prove his
or her claim.
In administrative cases against lawyers,
the required burden of proof is
preponderance of evidence, or evidence
that is superior, more convincing, or of
"greater weight than the other.”
In this case, complainant discharged this
burden. The slapping incident was not
only alleged by complainant in detail in
his signed and notarized Affidavit;
complainant's Affidavit was also
supported by the signed and notarized
Affidavit of a traffic aide present during
the incident. It was even the traffic aide
who informed complainant of
respondent's plate number.
In finding that complainant was slapped
by respondent, Commissioner De La Rama
gave weight to the letter sent by the
League of Mayors and ruled that "the
people's faith in the legal profession
eroded" because of respondent's act of
slapping complainant. The Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Board of Governors
correctly affirmed and adopted this
finding. The League of Mayors' letter,
signed by no less than 19 Mayors,
strengthened complainant's allegations.
Contrary to respondent's claim that it
shows the political motive behind this
case, the letter reinforced complainant's
credibility and motive. The presence of
19 Mayors' signatures only reinforced the
appalling nature of respondent's act. It
reflects the public's reaction to
respondent's display of arrogance.
The purpose of administrative
proceedings is to ensure that the public
is protected from lawyers who are no
longer fit for the profession. In this
instance, this Court will not tolerate the
arrogance of and harassment committed
by its officers.
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public
or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
By itself, the act of humiliating another
in public by slapping him or her on the
face hints of a character that disregards
the human dignity of another.
Respondent's question to complainant,
"Wa ka makaila sa ako?" ("Do you not
know me?") confirms such character and
his potential to abuse the profession as
a tool for bullying, harassment, and
discrimination.
This arrogance is intolerable. It
discredits the legal profession by
perpetuating a stereotype that is
unreflective of the nobility of the
profession. As officers of the court and
of the law, lawyers are granted the
privilege to serve the public, not to bully
them to submission.
G o o d c h a ra c t e r i s a c o n t i n u i n g
qualification for lawyers. This Court has
the power to impose disciplinary
sanctions to lawyers who commit acts of
misconduct in either a public or private
capacity if the acts show them unworthy
to remain officers of the court.
This Court has previously established that
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are sui generis. They are neither civil
nor criminal in nature. They are not a
determination of the parties' rights.
Rather, they are pursued as a matter of
public interest and as a means to
determine a lawyer's fitness to continue
holding the privileges of being a court
o f f i c e r. A s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s ,
complainants in administrative actions
against lawyers are mere witnesses. They
are not indispensable to the proceedings.
It is the investigative process and the
finding of administrative liability that are
important in disciplinary proceedings.
Hence, complainant's absence during the
hearings before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is not a bar against a finding
of administrative liability.
32. Cresencio vs. Anonymous Complaint
A.C No. 5900. July 8, 2019 Ponente:
Reyes, J. Jr., J.

See PDF
33. A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016
ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v.
ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEÑA,
Respondent.
This case is an administrative complaint
filed by Adelpha E. Malabed
(complainant) against Atty. Meljohn B. De
la Peña (respondent) for dishonesty and
grave misconduct.
government office as accessory penalty
of his dismissal as a judge.
Gross misconduct is defined as "improper
or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not a mere error in
judgment."

The complainant claimed that the In view of respondent's repeated gross

Certificate to File Action in the complaint misconduct, the court increased the IBP's
filed by respondent refers to a different recommended penalty to suspension
complaint that is the complaint filed by from the practice of law for two (2)
complainant's brother against Fortunato years.
Jadulco. In effect, there was no
Certificate to File Action, which is
required for the filing of a civil action, in
the complaint filed by respondent on
behalf of his client Fortunato Jadulco.
Morever, the complainant also alleged
that respondent did not furnish her
counsel with a copy of the free patent
covered by Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. 1730, but respondent
forwarded a copy to the Court of
Appeals. Complainant claimed that she
could not properly defend herself
without a copy of the title. She further
claimed that the title presented by
respondent was fabricated.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is

g u i l t y o f d i s h o n e s t y a n d g ra v e
misconduct.

RULING:
The court finds the respondent has
committed gross misconduct for (1)
misrepresenting that he submitted a
certificate to file action issued by the
Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there
was none prior to the institution of the
civil action of his client, Fortunato
Jadulco, in Civil Case No. B-1118; (2)
using improper language in his pleadings;
and (3) defying willfully the Court's
prohibition on reemployment in any
34. A.C. No. 7045, September 05, Admonished and likewise sternly
2016 - THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ warned for the commission for the same
MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS act in the future shall be dealt with more
FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO severely.
I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS.
RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R.
MORTA, Respondents.

FACTS: The Filing of administrative

complaint in connection with the pending
libel case against Eliseo F. Soriano before
the RTC of Quezon City wherein the
complainant as a counsel of Soriano,
while the respondent represents the
private complainant Michael M. Sandoval.

On 11 October 2005, Atty. Chavez sought

for cancellation of Soriano’s schedule of
arraignment because of the Petition for
review which he presented before the
court, and the same questioned the
resolution of City Prosecutor finding
probable cause to indict Soriano for libel.
However, the motion was denied and
proceeds with the arraignment.

In that event, the complainant conclude

that the judge was biased and filed for
motion to inhibit himself from the case
and that on 11 November 2005,
respondent filed a vehement opposition
to the motion for inhibition to contradict
complainant’s motion which he falsely
and maliciously accused with its lawyer
of antedating a petition for review filed
before the Department of Justice on
October 10, 2005.

ISSUE Whether or not respondent violated

the code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD Yes. Respondent is guilty of

violating the canon 8 and 10 of the code
of Professional Responsibility. The court
urged lawyers to utilize only respectful
and temperate language in the
preparation of pleadings, with the dignity
of the legal profession. Wherefore, Attys.
Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are
35. Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares vs.
Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra A.C.
No. 11394. December 1, 2016
Facts
This instant administrative case arose
from a verified complaint for disbarment
filed by complainant complainant Maria
Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant)
against respondent Atty. Roberto “Argee”
C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged
violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainant is the Medical Director and
principal stockholder of the Belo Medical
Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly
organized and existing under Philippine
laws 2 and engaged in the specialized
field of cosmetic surgery. On the other
hand, respondent is the lawyer of a
certain Ms. Josefina “Josie” Norcio
(Norcio ), who filed criminal cases
against complainant for an allegedly
botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly
causing infection and making her ill in
2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of
posts on his Facebook account insulting
and verbally abusing complainant. The
complaint further alleged that
respondent posted remarks on his
Facebook account that were intended to
d e s t r o y a n d r u i n B M G I ’s m e d i c a l
personnel, as well as the entire medical
practice of around 300 employees for no
fair or justifiable cause.
Issue:
Ruling:
The court find the respondent’s
inappropriate and obscene language,
and his act of publicly insulting and
undermining the reputation of
complainant through the subject
Facebook posts are in complete and utter
violation of the provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
Moreover, a lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper. In addition, the respondent is
expected to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of
his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on
Facebook directed at complainant and
BMGI, the respondent disregarded the
fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to
observe proper decorum at all times,
be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave
in a manner befitting of an officer of the
court, that is, respectful, firm, and
decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately
and rudely; he used words unbecoming of
an officer of the law, and conducted
himself in an aggressive way by hurling
insults and maligning complainant’s and
BMGI’s reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/
or a celebrity and therefore, a public
personage who is exposed to criticism
d o e s n o t j u s t i f y r e s p o n d e n t ’s
disrespectful language. It is the cardinal
condition of all criticism that it shall be
bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety. In this
case, respondent’s remarks against
complainant breached the said walls, for
which reason the former must be
administratively sanctioned.
The respondent, Atty. Roberto “Argee” C.
Guevarra, is found guilty of violation of
Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He was
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year and is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
3 6 . P E N I N A H D . F. WA S H I N G TO N ,
complainant, -versus- ATTY. SAMUEL D.
DICEN, respondent. A.C. No. 12137,
FIRST DIVISION, July 9, 2018, DEL
CASTILLO, J.
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides:
Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language
w h i c h i s a b u s i v e , o ff e n s i v e o r
otherwise improper.
A thorough review of the records clearly
shows that Atty. Dicen had resorted to
the use of derogatory language in his
pleadings filed before the IBP in order to
rebut the allegations hurled against him.
For instance, in his Manifestation, Atty.
Dicen referred to complainant as a
"lunatic" who was on a "crazy quest for
revenge" against him. In the same
pleading, Atty. Dicen also called
complainant "a puppet and a milking
cow" of a certain Martin, who he
suggested was complainant's lover in the
Philippines while her husband was in the
United States. To make matters worse,
Atty. Dicen continued his personal
tirades against complainant in his
Position Paper.
The totality of these circumstances leads
the Court to inevitably conclude that
Atty. Dicen violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8
of the CPR for his use of language that
not only maligned complainant's
character, but also imputed a crime
a g a i n s t h e r, i . e . , t h a t s h e w a s
committing adultery against her husband
who was, at the time, living in the
United States.
FACTS
Complainant alleged that, she went to
her house in Dumaguete City, then
occupied by the family of her niece,
Roselyn, in order to perform necessary
repairs thereon. The repairs, however,
did not push through as planned because
the police arrived in the premises and
arrested complainant and her
companions. Complainant claimed that it
was Atty. Dicen, Roselyn's uncle and her
first cousin, who had ordered her to be
arrested for trespassing even though she
was the lawful owner of the property in
question. In his defense, Atty. Dicen
strongly denied that he had given the
police officers an order to arrest
complainant, as he had no power or
authority to do so. He argued that
complainant was arrested after she was
caught in flagrante delicto committing
acts of coercion by removing the sheet
roofing of Roselyn's house to force the
latter and her family to move out.
The IBP-CBD found no merit in the
allegations of unethical practice of law
against Atty. Dicen Nevertheless, it
recommended that Atty. Dice be
admonished “to be gracious courteous,
dignified, civil, and temperate (even if
forceful) in his language.” The IBP
pointed to: (a) Atty. Dicen's Manifestation
where he described complainant's actions
as having "no sane purpose," and meant
only to "satisfy her crazy quest for
revenge," and even characterized
complainant as a "lunatic;" and (b) Atty.
Dicen's Position Paper where he stated:
It is the observation of the respondent
that complainant is no longer thinking on
her own but has become fixated on her
illicit and immoral, if not adulterous
relationship with her ex-husband, while
current husband is in the United States.
The IBP Board of Governors resolved to
adopt and approve the Report and
Recommenation of the IBP-CBD to
admonish Atty. Dicen.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Dicen should be held
administratively liable for violating Rule
8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) for his use of
intemperate language in his pleadings.
(YES)
 only maligned complainant's character,
RULING but also imputed a crime against her,
Canon 8 of the CPR, in particular, i.e., that she was committing adultery
instructs that a lawyer's arguments in his against her husband who was, at the
pleadings should be gracious to both the time, living in the United States.
court and his opposing counsel, and must
be of such words as may be properly Indeed, Atty. Dicen could have simply
addressed by one gentleman to another. stated the ultimate facts relative to
"The language vehicle does not run short complainant's allegations against him,
of expressions which are emphatic but explained his participation (or the lack of
respectful, convincing but not it) in the latter's arrest and detention,
d e r o g a t o r y, i l l u m i n a t i n g b u t n o t and refrained from resorting to name-
offensive." Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR calling and personal attacks in order to
provides: get his point across. After all, "though a
Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, lawyer's language may be forceful and
in his professional dealings, use emphatic, it should always be dignified
language which is abusive, and respectful, beffitting the dignity of
offensive or otherwise improper. the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind
A thorough review of the records clearly ascriptions has no place in the dignity of
shows that Atty. Dicen had resorted to judicial forum."
the use of derogatory language in his
pleadings filed before the IBP in order to Atty. Samuel D. Dicen is found GUILTY of
rebut the allegations hurled against him. violating Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is
For instance, in his Manifestation, Atty. ADMONISHED to refrain from using
Dicen referred to complainant as a language that is abusive, offensive or
"lunatic" who was on a "crazy quest for otherwise improper in his pleadings.
revenge" against him. In the same
pleading, Atty. Dicen also called
complainant "a puppet and a milking
cow" of a certain Martin, who he
suggested was complainant's lover in the
Philippines while her husband was in the
United States. To make matters worse,
Atty. Dicen continued his personal tirades
against complainant in his Position Paper
where he stated that:
It is the observation of the respondent
that complainant is no longer thinking on
her own but has become fixated on her
illicit and immoral, if not adulterous
relationship with her ex-husband, while
current husband is in the United States.

The totality of these circumstances leads

the Court to inevitably conclude that
Atty. Dicen violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of
the CPR for his use of language that not
46. AVIDA LAND CORPORATION vs. ATTY.
AL C. ARGOSINO AC No. 7437, August
17, 2016

FACTS:
In the midst of the squabble over the
HLURB case involving complainant and
Rodman Construction and Development
Corporation to which the respondent
acted as counsel, complainant - through
its vice president filed a Complaint-
Affidavit against respondent for alleged
professional misconduct and violation of
the Lawyer's Oath.

This is after allegedly filing numerous

dilatory and frivolous tactics employed
by respondent in the said case. In his
comment, respondent claimed that what
primarily caused the delays in the HLURB
case were the legal blunders of
complainant's counsel.

ISSUE:
WON respondent's act of filing numerous
pleadings, that caused delay in the
execution of a final judgment,
constitutes professional misconduct in
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath

HELD:
YES. Respondent is guilty of professional
misconduct. Despite the simplicity of
the issue involved in the HLURB case, the
path towards its resolution became long,
tedious, and frustrating because of the
deliberate attempts of respondent to
delay the actual execution of the
judgment therein. He continued to file
pleadings over issues already passed upon
even after being enjoined not to do so,
and made unfounded accusations of bias
or procedural defects. These acts
manifest his propensity to disregard the
authority of a tribunal and abuse court
processes, to the detriment of the
administration of justice.
47. DR. EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR.
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO S.
BACLIG, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017
A case of suspension or disbarment is sui
generis and not meant to grant relief to
a complainant as in a civil case, but is
intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members in
order to protect the public and the
courts.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases
reiterating that in disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant. In the recent case
of  Carrie-Anne Shaleen Carlyle S. Reyes
v. Atty. Ramon F. Nieva,  this Court had
the occasion to clarify that the proper
evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases
is substantial evidence.
The gist of the complaint before Us is the
alleged false assertions in the amended
complaint, to which Atty. Baclig has
consented to. Complainant alleged that
Atty. Baclig consented to falsehood when
the allegations in the amended complaint
specified, among others, that the subject
property is a hereditary property when in
fact it is a paraphernal property; that the
property is unregistered property; and
that it was inherited in 1952 when it was
not.
However, noteworthy is the fact that
such assertions are the matters in
dispute in the case before the RTC. In
other words, the assertions as to the
nature of the property and the time
when it was inherited also deal with the
main issue of the case. To recall,
Lamorena,  et. al.'s main contention is
that the subject property is a hereditary
property, being the property of their
parents. On the other hand, complainant
alleged that they brought the property
from Catalina and the latter had every
right to sell it even without the consent
of her spouse because it is her
paraphernal property. In other words, the
issue in the amended complaint is who
b e t w e e n L a m o r e n a ,  e t . a l .  a n d
complainant herein has the right of
possession over the subject property.
Hence, Atty. Baclig cannot be faulted
for consenting to his clients' act of
asserting such statements.
At any rate, it must be considered that
Atty. Baclig's pleadings were privileged
and would not occasion any action
against him as an attorney.
As regards  res judicata, laches, and
jurisdiction, We note that the same are
not founded on substantial evidence.
However, as to the matter of forum
shopping, We find that Atty. Baclig
resorted to the same.
In forum shopping, the following
requisites should concur: (a) identity of
parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful,
amount to  res judicata  in the action
under consideration.
In this case, it must be noted that an
amended complaint was filed by
Lamorena,  et. al.  against herein
complainant and Paa before the MTCC in
February 2010. In sum, such amended
complaint sought for the nullification of
the mortgage contract and deed of sale
which transferred the property to herein
complainant and his co-defendants and
the declaration of Lamorena,  et. al.  as
the absolute owners of the subject
property. Eventually, the case before the
MTCC was dismissed with prejudice in an
Order dated November 9, 2012.
However, on September 19, 2012,
another amended complaint was filed by
Lamorena,  et. al.  against complainants,
Robert and Paa, but this time, before the
RTC. A cursory reading of the complaint
reveals that the reliefs sought pertain to
the nullification of any and all the
documents in the form of a written
agreement which may be executed
without the consent of Lamorena,  et.
al.  In esse, such complaint before the
RTC prayed for similar reliefs as those
which were sought for in the complaint
before the MTCC.
On this note, We rule that there was
forum shopping in this case, for while
the case before the MTCC was pending,
Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of
another complaint before another
forum,  i.e., RTC. Such cases deal with
the same parties and same reliefs. Thus,
a ruling in one case would resolve the
other, and vice versa.
Moreover, regardless of the fact that
Atty. Baclig did not act as counsel in the
case before the MTC, it would not
exempt him from culpability. Atty. Baclig
did not categorically deny the
allegations of complainant regarding the
commission of forum shopping. Moreover,
it is surprising that he was able to answer
the 10 causes of action raised by
complainant, except the issue on forum
shopping. Hence, he is deemed to have
admitted that he has knowledge of the
pendency of a similar complaint before
the MTC when a complaint before the
RTC was filed.
In this regard, We emphasize that the
filing of another action concerning the
same subject matter runs contrary to
Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of
the CPR. Canon 1 of the CPR requires a
lawyer to exert every effort and consider
it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice and
Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 prohibits the
undue delay of a case by misusing court
processes.
We reiterate that a lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client, but not at the
expense of truth and the administration
of justice. The filing of multiple petitions
constitutes abuse of the court's
processes and improper conduct that
tends to impede, obstruct and degrade
the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court.
A former member of the judiciary need
not be reminded of the fact that forum
shopping wreaks havoc upon orderly
judicial process and clogs the courts'
dockets.  As a former judge, Atty. Baclig
must be mindful not only of the tenets of
the legal profession but also of the
proper observance of the same.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We
find the complaint meritorious and
accordingly  CENSURE  Atty. Vivencio S.
Baclig for violating Canon 1 and Rule
12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of
P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y. H e
is  STERNLY WARNED  that any future
violation of his duties as a lawyer will be
dealt with more severely.
48. A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v.
A T T Y. N I C A N O R C . A L V A R E Z ,
Respondent.
FACTS: Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo
(Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of
San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired
respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty.
Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and
administrative cases before the Office of
the Ombudsman.
Atty. Alvarez was then working in the
Legal Section of the National Center for
Mental Health. Teresita hired Atty.
Alvarez to handle several cases filed
against her before the Office of the
Ombudsman. He asked for P1,400,000.00
as acceptance fee. However, Atty.
Alvarez did not enter his appearance
before the Office of the Ombudsman nor
sign any pleadings.
Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had
friends connected with the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help with
dismissing her case for a certain fee.
Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay
the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends
and acquaintances working at the Office
of the Ombudsman to have the cases
against Teresita dismissed. However, the
Office of the Ombudsman issued a
resolution and decision recommending
the filing of a criminal complaint against
Teresita, and her dismissal from service,
respectively.
of Health is authorized to privately
practice law,
2) Whether the amount charged by
respondent for attorney's fee is
reasonable under the principle of
quantum meruit.
RULING: By assisting and representing
complainant in a suit against the
Ombudsman and against government in
general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest. While
this Court is not a collection agency for
faltering debtors, this Court has ordered
restitution of amounts to complainants
due to the erroneous actions of lawyers.
Respondent is obliged to return back the
500,000Php, Respondent Atty. Nicanor C.
Alvarez is guilty of violating the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's
Oath, and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year with a
WARNING. Respondent is ORDERED to
return the amount of P500,000.00 with
legal interest to complainant Teresita P.
Fajardo.

Teresita then demanded that Atty.

Alvarez return at least a portion of the
amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised
to return the amount to Teresita;
however, he failed.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not a lawyer working in
the Legal Section of the National Center
for Mental Health under the Department
49.  Amparo Bueno Vs. Atty. Ramon A.
Rañeses, AC 8383 (December 11, 2012)
Duty To Client
Before the Court is the Complaint for
Disbarment against Atty. Ramon Rañeses
filed on March 3, 1993 by Amparo Bueno
with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD).
Facts:
Complainant hired the services of the
respondent to represent her in a civil
case. Respondent allegedly convinced her
to give P10,000 and another P5,000 in
order to bribe the judge and win the
case. Despite the complainant’s giving of
the required money, however, she was
shocked to find out that the case turned
out against her despite her counsel’s
assurance of winning the case.
Wo r s e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t a l l e g e d l y
concealed all the development of the
case from her, including his failure to
comment on the adverse party’s offer of
evidence and to submit their
memorandum on the case. The
respondent has also failed to attend the
hearings set by the IBP.
Commissioners regarding the notices
given him about the case.
From these perspectives, Atty. Rañeses
wronged his client, the judge allegedly
on the “take,” the Judiciary as an
institution, and the IBP of which he is a
member. The Court cannot and should
not allow offenses such as these to pass
unredressed. Let this be a signal to one
and all – to all lawyers, their clients and
the general public  – that the Court will
not hesitate to act decisively and with no
quarters given to defend the interest of
the public, of our judicial system and the
institutions composing it, and to ensure
that these are not compromised by
unscrupulous or misguided members of
the Bar.
Adjudication:
Respondent Atty. Ramon A. Rañeses is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of
law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision.

Issue:
Whether the acts of the respondent
warrant disbarment from the practice of
law.

Ruling:
Ye s . I n t h i s c a s e , A t t y. R a ñ e s e s
committed a grave offense. As explained
below, he committed a fraudulent
exaction, and at the same time
maligned both the judge and the
Judiciary. These are exacerbated by his
cavalier attitude towards the IBP during
the investigation of his case; he
practically disregarded its processes and
even lied to one of the Investigating