1. Brion, Jr. v. Brilliantes, Jr., Adm. Case No.

5305, March 17, 2003 - CAJES

Facts: Complainant Marciano Brion, Jr., charges the respondent, Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., of having
wilfully violated a lawful order of this Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v.
Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. Petitioner now avers that respondent violated our decree of perpetual
disqualification imposed upon him from assuming any post in government service, including any posts in
government-owned and controlled corporations, when he accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local
Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), from 1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included an appointment by
LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District.  Upon
expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy
Agreement.

Petitioner contends that while both consultancy agreements contained a proviso to the effect that
nothing therein should be construed as establishing an employer-employee relationship between LWUA
and respondent.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Brillantes should be suspended in the practice of law.

Held: Yes, The Court held that respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of this Courts decree
in Atienza.

The lawyers primary duty as enunciated in the Attorneys Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Respondents disobedience to this
Courts order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of government,
including government owned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal
consultancy or a special consultancy contract. By performing duties and functions of a contractual
employee of LWUA, by way of a consultancy, and receiving compensation and perquisites as such, he
displayed acts of open defiance of the Courts authority, and a deliberate rejection of his oath as an
officer of the court. Such defiance not only erodes respect for the Court but also corrodes public
confidence in the rule of law.

What aggravates respondents offense is the fact that respondent is no ordinary lawyer. Having served in
the judiciary for eight (8) years, he is very well aware of the standards of moral fitness for membership
in the legal profession. His propensity to try to get away with an indiscretion becomes apparent and
inexcusable when he entered into a legal consultancy contract with the LWUA. 

2. Feliciano vs. Bautista AC 7593

Facts:

Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty. Carmencita Bautista – Lozada in representing his
husband Edilberto Lozada in the latter’s case against the complainant on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged
that Atty. Bautista – Lozada appeared as a counsel for his husband and actively participated in the court
proceedings while she is still suspended from the practice of law in reference to a court judgment on
December 15, 2005. Feliciano argued that the act of the respondent constitutes willful disobedience to a
court order. In her reply, Atty Bautista – Lozada claims that she was only forced by the situation that she
needed to defend the right of his husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute. She believes that since
 she is representing his husband and not a client, it is not within the prohibition of the law. The case was
referred to the IBP for investigation and the IBP Investigating Officer recommended disbarment for Atty.
Bautista – Lozada in violation of Rule 1.01, 1.02 and Rule 18.01 of the CPR. The IBP-BOG adopted the
recommendation with modification to suspension of only 3 months.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Atty. Bautista – Lozada warrant disciplinary action?

Held: Yes, it warrants disciplinary action

Atty. Bautista – Lozada’s act of representing his husband in court proceedings while still serving her
suspension is an act prohibited by law that should warrant disciplinary action. Sec 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court clearly stated that a willful disobedience of any lawful order of the superior court,
or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so is a
ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. The practice of law is defined as any
activity, in or out of the court, which requires that application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. In the case at bar, Atty. Bautista-Lozada in appearing, signing for and in behalf
of his husband in pleadings and court proceedings constitutes practice of law where she should desist
herself from engaging during the period of her suspension. The prior judgment of her suspension was
promulgated on December 15, 2005, therefore she cannot engage in the practice of law until December
2007.

3. Bautista vs. Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625]

FACTS: In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged
with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleged that
respondent committed the following acts:

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado
and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court
fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation. x x x

Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on August 30, 1971
for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143,
covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney’s
fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public
auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of
Deeds of Iligan City;

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.

HELD: YES. The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados is contrary
to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree
with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the
expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between
respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of
litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of
proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy
especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in
consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. The execution of these contracts
violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.

4. Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo

FACTS: Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with
Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar
and before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.

The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In his
defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his
good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband
and father despite the affair. More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court,
Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of post-
dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of
Php2,000.00 each.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and should be punished
with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension.

HELD: The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the community is a just
and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension
of two years.  Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be 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 not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar
examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to
membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement which is
not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.

This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession. It is a continuing
requirement to the practice of law and therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent
judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral fitness before
he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption
that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.

5. Jimenez v. Francisco 2004 A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014

Facts: Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint for estafa filed by
Jimenez against her. She felt even more betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, on
whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion’s corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This
prompted her to file a disciplinary case against Atty. Francisco for representing conflicting interests.
According to her, she usually conferred with Atty. Francisco regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s
transactions. More significantly, the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion’s
property were all prepared and drafted by Atty. Francisco or the members of his law office.7 Atty.
Francisco was the one who actively participated in the transactions involving the sale of the Forbes
property. Without admitting the truth of the allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its
execution clearly betrayed the trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason,
complainant prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.

Issue: Whether respondent’s actively and passively allowing Clarion to make untruthful representations
to the SEC and in other public documents, still constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office
as attorney.

Held: Yes, While the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of interests and disclosure of
privileged communication, the acts of Atty. Francisco, in actively and passively allowing Clarion to make
untruthful representations to the SEC and in other public documents, still constitute malpractice and
gross misconduct in his office as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
months is warranted. Atty. Francisco could have prevented his entanglement with this fiasco among the
members of Jimenez’s family by taking an upfront and candid stance in dealing with Jimenez’s children
and complainant. He could have been staunch in reminding the latter that his tasks were performed in
his capacity as legal counsel for Clarion and Jimenez. Be that as it may, Atty. Francisco’s indiscretion does
not detract the Court from finding that the totality of evidence presented by the complainant miserably
failed to discharge the burden of proving that Atty. Francisco was her lawyer. At most, he served as the
legal counsel of Clarion and, based on the affirmation presented, of Jimenez. Suffice it to say,
complainant failed to establish that Atty. Francisco committed a violation of the rule on conflict of
interests.

6. Anaya vs. Alvarez

Facts:

Spouses Anaya alleged that: (1) Atty. Alvarez prepared and notarized the deeds of sale of the three (3)
properties they sold; (2) Atty. Alvarez asked them for cash in exchange for his four (4) Allied Bank checks
with the assurance that the checks would be honored upon presentment to the drawee bank once they
fell due as they would be fully funded on due date; (3) they eventually agreed to give cash to Atty.
Alvarez in exchange for the said checks relying on his assurance and professional stature; (4) they
withdrew from their Philippine National Bank account the amounts corresponding to the four (4) checks
issued by Atty. Alvarez.

The said checks, except Check No. 35838, which appeared stale due to an erroneous entry of the date,
were dishonored by the drawee bank by reason ACCOUNT CLOSED; they made repeated verbal and
written demands on Atty. Alvarez but these remained unheeded; and after receipt of the second
demand letter, Atty. Alvarez went to spouses Anaya and offered the amount of P20,000.00 as partial
payment but they refused to accept the same as they wanted the return of the full amount due.

Atty. Alvarez admitted his obligation but claimed that the cash he obtained from spouses Anaya was a
simple loan with an interest of two percent (2%) per month and that, at the very outset, they knew that
the checks were issued mainly as a collateral for the loan and that the checks were not funded.

He asserted that he had no intention of defrauding them and, in fact, he went to their residence and
offered to pay the loan at P20,000.00 plus 2% interest a month but his request was not granted. Atty.
Alvarez reiterated his request to settle his obligation on a monthly basis plus the 2% monthly interest.

IBP-CBD found that Atty. Alvarez violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
recommended that he be reprimanded and be reminded to settle and pay his obligation to spouses
Anaya.

IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD and recommended the suspension of Atty. Alvarez, Jr. from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

Issue: Whether or not the suspension is proper

Held: Yes

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral
qualification required of a lawyer. 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. Their
conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR.

Atty. Alvarez’s failure to pay his debts despite several demands, and his act of issuing numerous checks
which were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account, puts his moral character in
serious doubt. It demonstrates his lack of reverence to the lawyer’s oath, and seriously and irreparably
tarnished the image of the profession he promised to hold in high esteem. Atty. Alvarez’s contention
that he offered to pay his debts on a monthly basis but was refused by Spouses Anaya fails to persuade.
He should have known that a mere offer to pay a debt is insufficient unless accompanied by an actual
tender of payment.

Indeed, the deliberate failure to pay debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct. Thus, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude.

7. FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA

Facts:
In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent in his law office in
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her husband, Juan
C. Madria.

The respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for her the
decree of annulment. He told her, too, that his legal services would cost P25,000.00.

After paying his legal services, respondent advised her to just wait for the resolution of her complaint,
and assured her that she did not need to appear in court. He explained that all the court notices and
processes would be sent to his office, and that he would regularly apprise her of the developments.

In the latter part of April 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been
granted. The complainant, throughher daughter Vanessa, received from the respondent a copy of the
certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao of the RTC (Branch 4).
Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and
certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of her passport.However, she became the object of an
investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner, Andrew Dowson
Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of her
marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of finality given by the respondent
did not exist in the court records,

Respondent averred that petitioner had prevailed upon him to simulate the court decision to the effect
that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of finality; that she had assured
him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential.
IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala concluded that the respondent had violated his Lawyer's
Oath; and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.
The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation of suspension from the practice of law for
two years to disbarment.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. Rivera is guilty of the charges.

Held: YES. Respondent`s deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of finality of the
decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
Bar.

The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule
15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do no
falsehood, nor consent to its commission."17 Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined
every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the
course of his practice of law. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his
client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.
Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required the
respondent be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary responsibility for
the sake of getting her money, he committed a further violation of his Lawyer's Oath by which he swore
not to "delay any man's cause for money or malice," and to "conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients ."
He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal knowledge to promote his own selfish
motives, thereby disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.

The moral standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the highest degree of
professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their practice of law.

It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most
imperative reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. The test is whether the conduct shows the
lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the
conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.

8. Kupers v. Hontanosas A.C. No. 5704, May 8, 2009

Facts:  Complainant claimed that as counsel for Hans and Vivian Busse, respondent had prepared a
memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease between the spouses Busse and Hochstrasser, a
Swiss national. Under said agreement, Hochstrasser would lease Vivian Busse’s property in Alcoy, Cebu
for fifty (50) years, renewable for another fifty (50) years. Complainant added that respondent had acted
despite conflict of interest on his part since the Spouses Busse and Hochstrasser were both his clients.
Respondent prepared a similar agreement and lease contract between the spouses Busse and Karl
Emberger, a Swiss national, over another parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. This time the lease contract was
for a period of forty nine (49) years renewable for another forty nine (49) years. All four (4) documents
were notarized by respondent. It was also averred that respondent drafted two deeds of sale over the
leased properties of Spouses Busse to Naomie Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl Novak, a German National.
The Commissioner found that respondent had prepared and notarized contracts that violated
Presidential Decree No. 471 (P.D. No. 471) since leases of private lands by aliens cannot exceed twenty
five (25) years, renewable for another twenty five (25) years. Nonetheless, complainant failed to prove
the other charges he had hurled against respondent as the former was not privy to the agreements
between respondent and the latter’s clients. Moreover, complainant failed to present any concrete
proof of the other charges. The commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) months. Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors disregarded the
recommendation of the commissioner and dismissed the complaint. The Board of Governors
ratiocinated that suspension was not warranted since respondent did not really perform an illegal act.
The act was not illegal per se since the lease agreement was likely made to reflect the agreement among
the parties without considering the legality of the situation. While admittedly respondent may be guilty
of ignorance of the law or plain negligence, the Board dismissed the complaint out of compassion.

Issue: Whether the Lawyer’s committed a violation of this oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Held: Yes, the court stressed that much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law
because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.
The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his work and profession ideally should not only promote the
interests of his clients. A lawyer has the duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect for the
legal profession. The administrative cases against lawyers are sui generes and as such the complainant in
the case need not be the aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a party to the contracts, the
charge of drafting and notarizing contracts in contravention of law holds weight. A plain reading of these
contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting lease of private lands to aliens for a period of
twenty five (25) years renewable for another twenty five (25) years. In preparing and notarizing the
illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorney’s Oath and several canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to “obey the laws
of the Philippines.” This duty is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath16 and in Canon 1, which provides that
“(a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.” Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal systems.”

The other canons of professional responsibility which respondent transgressed are the following:

Canon 15 – a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients.

Rule 15.07- a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
hairness.

Canon 17 – a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

9. Advincula vs Advincula, AC No. 9226

FACTS:

 Dr. Advincula (petitioner) has averred that Atty. Advincula (respondent) committed unlawful and
immoral acts while still married to her
 He had extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga). Accordingly
the extra-marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga Advincula
(Alexandria)
 Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support to their own children, namely: Ma. Samantha
Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his having sufficient financial resources.
 He admitted in the affidavit of late registration of birth of Alexandria that he had contracted
another marriage with Ms. Gonzagathat even should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration
in the affidavit of late registration of birth was motivated by some reason other than the fact
that he truly entered into a subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga, then making such a
declaration was in itself still unlawful.
 Verily, petitioner avers that siring a child with a woman other than his lawful wife was conduct
way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer; that contracting a subsequent
marriage while the first marriage had not been dissolved was also an unlawful conduct;  that
 making a false declaration before a notary public was an unlawful conduct punishable under
the Revised Penal Code; and that the failure of Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his
children showed his moral character to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer.
 Dr. Advincula prayed that Atty. Advincula be disbarred.
 Atty. Advincula’s defense: Their relationship was already strained prior to the birth of their
youngest, he did not contract a subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga.
 Atty. Advincula also acknowledged the birth of his child to Ms. Gonzaga. In consideration of his
moral obligation as a father, he gave support to Alexandra; 16 that he only learned that the birth
of Alexandra had been subsequently registered after the child was already enrolled in school; 
 It was Dr. Advincula left for the United States of America (USA) to work as a nurse; that the
custody of their children was not entrusted to him but he agreed to such arrangement to avoid
further division of the family; that during the same period he was also busy with his law studies;
that Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their children migrate to the USA but he opposed the
proposal because he would not be able to practice his profession there; that Dr. Advincula
stated that if he did not want to join her, then she would just get the children to live with her.
 When Dr. Advincula came home for a vacation he was not able to accompany her due to his
extremely busy schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National
Bureau of Investigation; cralawred and that when they finally met arguments flared out, during
which she threatened to file a disbarment suit against him in order to force him to allow her to
bring their children to the USA. Atty. Advincula prayed that the disbarment case be dismissed for
utter lack of merit.
 IBP Recommendation: 2 month suspension in light of the extra marital affair.

ISSEUE: WON Atty. Advincula should be disbarred.

HELD: No. He was only suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.

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. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good
moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.

Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of
disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be
so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
 degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common
sense of decency.

cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his siring the child with a woman
other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct when he
was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had committed
the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape
administrative liability. Taking all the circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court
considers suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and appropriate.

As a last note, Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance dated February 26, 2013 that he had
immediately accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspending him from the
practice of law for two months as final and executory; that he had then gone on leave from work in
the NBI for two months starting in November and lasting until the end of December, 2012; and that
such leave from work involved refraining from performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the NBI.

The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like him ought to know that it is only the
Court that wields the power to discipline lawyers. The IBP Board of Governors did not possess such
power, rendering its recommendation against him incapable of finality. It is the Court's final
determination of his liability as a lawyer that is the reckoning point for the service of sanctions and
penalties. As such, his supposed compliance with the recommended two-month suspension could
not be satisfied by his going on leave from his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government
employee necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should include his suspension
from office. A leave of absence will not suffice. This is so considering that his position mandated him
to be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. The suspension from the practice of law will
not be a penalty if it does not negate his continuance in office for the period of the suspension. If
the rule is different, this exercise of reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is rendered inutile
and becomes a mockery because he can continue to receive his salaries and other benefits by simply
going on leave for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law.

10. Valin vs Ruiz Ac 10564, Nov 7, 2017

FACTS:
The father of the complainants was the original registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate
of Title P-3275(S). Their father died in Hawaii in 1992. Years later, complainant discovered that the land has been
transferred to respondent, the godson of his father, resulting in the cancellation of OCT P-3275(S) and the issuance
of Transfer Certificate of Title T-116559(s) in the name of respondent.

He learned from the Register of Deeds that the land was conveyed to respondent in consideration of P10,000 by
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale and executed purportedly by complainants' father with the alleged consent of his
spouse.

The complainants alleged that the subject deed was obviously falsified and the signatures were forgeries because
their father was already dead and their mother was in Hawaii at that time. Their father's Community Tax
Certificate used to identify their father in the deed was also falsified as it was issued only in 1996 long after their
father's death.

Respondent claimed that Rogelio Valin, one of the children of the spouses, sold the subject land to him in 1989
allegedly in representation of their father. He asked Rogelio for his authority to sell the subject land but the latter
claimed that he could not locate his authority from his parents in their house.

Respondent claimed that he knew that it was hard to transfer the title because the complainant's father was out of
the country at that time and without a SPA, for the purpose; thus, Rogelio undertook to transfer the title. He
denied all allegations against him as it was Rogelio who processed the transfer of the title of the land in his name.
He clarified that he instructed his house helper to sign the release of the title in his name because he was busy to
go to the RD to sign the release for himself as per instruction of Rogelio's messenger. His claims and denials are
unmeritorious as he admitted that he instructed his helper to pick up the said copy from the RD.

IBP-CBD recommended suspension for 2 years. IBP-BOG adopted CBD's recommendation.

Held: The Court accepts and adopts IBP-CBD's findings and IBP-BOG's recommendation.
The respondent would like the commission to believe that Rogelio Valin authored the falsification of the Deed of
Absolute Sale. No evidence had been adduced by the respondent to substantiate such allegation. Moreover, the
Commission finds it unbelievable that after 7 years, Rogelio Valin will be bothered by his conscience for not
fulfilling his commitment to transfer OCT in the name of his father to the name of the respondent by falsifying a
Deed of Absolute Sale and making it appear that his deceased father sold to respondent and in the process risk
being sued for falsification of public documents. Also, records will show that Rogelio Valin was one of the
complainants who filed cases against the respondent in connection with the subject property. Such posturing runs
counter to respondent's insinuation that Rogelio Valin was the culprit in the falsification of the Deed of Absolute
Sale.
1. As early as 1989, respondent was aware that the sale of the subject land without proper authorization
was null and void.
2. Respondent continued to ignore the reality that Rogelio was precluded to sell the land without the SPA
of his parents.
3. Respondent admitted in his petition that he is a close family friend and godson of the complainants'
father. Certainly, he could not claim such strong ties to the family if he never heard about the latter's demise.
4. Respondent was knowledgeable that the title was issued in his name because he instructed his house
helper to finalize the release of the title.
5. The subject deed was readily available at the RD. Respondent could have effortlessly and briefly
verified the said deed, which was the basis of the transfer of title to him. Respondent did not bother to even read
the subject deed of sale which contains obvious and palpable irregularities, he continued to disregard them for his
own convenience.
6. As a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the requisites for the legality of deed of sale and its
registration. He is also duty-bound to denounce illegally acquired deeds of sale, which deceive and betray the
general public.
The written authority is irrelevant and incredible. The Court wonders how the said written authority suspiciously
conjured itself out of thin air when respondent had confessed that it was not existing at the time of the alleged
sale in 1989.

Respondent violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR when he participated and benefited
from the falsified deed. Even though he acted in his personal capacity in the improper sale and registration of the
subject, he is not excused from liability.
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach
on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide
his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

Respondent participated in the registration and release of subject title in his favor with the use of the falsified deed
of sale. Pedro has long been dead when the subject deed was executed. Respondent did not do anything to verify
the validity of the subject deed and its registration in spite of the numerous badges of fraud. He is presumed the
author as he was the only beneficiary thereof. Because of his actions, the complainants were deprived with their
share as compulsory heirs.

Respondent is found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR. The Court suspends
respondent from practice of law for two years with a stern warning that repetition of a similar violation will be
dealt with even more severely. He is directed to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable the Court
to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

11. Belo-Henares vs Guevarra AC 11394, Dec 1, 2016

FACTS: This instant administative 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 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 destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice
of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:

Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client’s Ass, Belo.
Senator Adel Tamano, don’t kiss Belo’s ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan
2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No goons,
No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!

Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio’s Big Bang on Friday -You will go down in
Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG,
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles �� (September 22
at 11:18pm)

Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office receptionist in
Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng
Payola ang kaso … si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to
me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm

Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may ‘extra-legal’ budget yon. Kaya Lang, bistado ko na
kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno
dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)

Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BATCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NJYO AKO KUNG MAGKANONG
PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang
payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions …. (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx xxx xxx

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public
hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of
P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the
instant complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2551.

In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-
guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by complainant were private remarks on his
private account on Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant
was not a part. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and
contended that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed
against complainant. He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in
order to inspire public hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that he attempted to extort
money from her, explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the
criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out
that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.

Issues: WON Guevarra’s actions merit disciplinary action

HELD: Yes. (1 year suspension from the practice of law)

It has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
absolute. As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast
lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.

A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made
with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a
"quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating
that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to
besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ( "binaboy ") his client
Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services -all these
despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even
threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa -which is contrary to one's
obligation "to act with justice."
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly
insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are,
therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

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.

Rule 8.01 -A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

Rule 19.01 -A lawyer shall 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, 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 does not justify respondent'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.

WHEREFORE, 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 is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and is  STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

12. Fabroa vs Faguinto, AC No. 6273, March 15, 2010

FACTS:

June 21 2001, An information for estafa was filed against Atty. Illuminada Vaflor-Fabroa (Petitioner)
amongst others. Atty. Oscar Pagunto prepared and notarized the joint affidavit-complained.

The affidavit-complaint did not include Vaflor-Fabroa's involvement. She filed a motion to quash the
information. Trial Court granted the motion. Atty. Paguinto's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Atty. Paguinto filed six other criminal complaints against Vaflor-Fabroa against violations of Art 21 of RA
6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines). He filed a motion to withdraw those.

October 21 2001 Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa, as chair of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative
(GEMASCO) received a notice of a special general assembly on Oct 14, 2001. Agenda was to consider the
removal of 4 members of the Board of Directors including her and the General Manager.
October 14, 2001, PNP Sr Supt Angelito Gerango, complainant's predecessor, presided over Special GA
that included people who were not members of current Board. Gerangco declared himself Chair,
appointed others to replaced removed directors and appointed Atty. Paguinto as Board Secretary.

October 15 2001, Gerango and his group took over GEMASCO offices and pumpohouses, water facilities
and operations. Atty Paguinto sent notices to Chair and removed directors of their removial of the
board. They advised recipients to cease and desist discharging duties of their position.

October 16 2001, Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa filed complaint for annulment of proceedings from Oct 14, with
the Cooperative Development Authority –Calamba (CDA).

February 21 2002, The CDA Acting Regional Director issued a resolution declaring the assembly null and
void due to being in violation of GEMASCO’s by laws and cooperative code. CDA later vacated the
Regional Director’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.

Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa then filed a disbarment case alleging that he:

1. Promoted or sued groundless, false, unlawful suit

2. Disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for the law and legal profession

3. Did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, candor toward his professional colleague and
engaged in harassing tactics against opposing counsel

4. Violated canon 19 – a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law Ruined

5. Damaged not only GEMASCO but water consuming community too

Court granted Paguinto’s request for extension. He didn’t file an answer. He was asked to show just
cause but failed to do so. Case was recommended to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.

IBP: Violations against Code of Professional Responsibility: Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, Rule 12.03

Violations against lawyers oath: “Promoted or sued groundless, false, unlawful suit, “Will do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court” “Will delay no man for money or malice”

After conference, both parties were asked to file position paper on issue of whether misconduct was
committed by respondent. Atty Vaflor- Fabroa complied while Atty Paguinto again failed to submit an a
position paper.

Commissioner Quisumbing found him guilty of violations against lawyers oath, and canons 1,8,10 and
rule 12.03. She recommended a suspension of 2 years. He was previously suspended for 6 months.

IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline opted to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. After M for
Reconsideration, IBP-CBD recommended 6 month suspension

ISSUE: WON Atty Pagunto’s actions merited disciplinary action.

HELD: Yes.

1. violation was conniving with GEMASCO board and Gerango on the take over, he violated its by-laws
and the Cooperative Code. He violated lawyers oath :  to uphold constitution and obey laws
2. violation committed when he filed baseless criminal complaints which promoted or sued groundless,
false, unlawful suit. He violated lawyer’s oath.

3. he failed to submit comment after asking for an extension, he ignored court’s order show a cavalier
attitude towards the court and disrespect for its institution.

Sebastien v. Bajar, repeatedly ignoring orders of the SC constitutes disrespect for judicial institution

Lawyers must respect court orders and processes and deference shows wilful disregard that must be
punished or subject to disciplinary action.

Because he was previously suspended, he must be meted a higher penalty.

He is suspended for two years from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately.

13. Linsangan vs Tolnetino, Ac No. 6672, September 4, 2009

FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. Complaint alleged that respondent,
with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce
them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. To support his
allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to
prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services
instead, in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00. Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the
said calling card.

Issue: Whether or not Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment.

Held: Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a
ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides
that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause. This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty. In the case at bar, complainant presented
substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano
and referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as
profited from referrals’ suits. Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited.
Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that
respondent could produce a more favorable result. Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Any act of solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Court’s
disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact
with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus in this jurisdiction, the Court
adheres to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers
and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.

Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer
shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

14 In Re: Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. (B.M. No. 1370, May 9, 2005)

FACTS: Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter to the SC requesting for exemption from payment of his IBP dues
from 1977-2005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He contends that after  admission to the Bar he worked at
the Civil Service Commission then migrated to the US until his retirement. His contention to be exempt
is that his employment with the CSC prohibits him to practice his law profession and he did
not practice the same while in the US. The compulsion that he pays his IBP annual membership is
oppressive since he has an inactive status as a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of non-
payment of the same constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft of due process of the
law.

Issues:

1. Is petitioner entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was
inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he
was working abroad from 1986-2003?

2.  Does the enforcement of the penalty of removal amount to a deprivation of property without
due process?

Held:
1. No. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation. If the judiciary has inherent
power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee
for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means to defray
the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to impose such
exaction.

The payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt.
This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.

2. No. Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that entitles the
holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to consider at length, as it [is] clear
that under the police power of the State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to
perpetuate its existence, the respondents right to practice law before the courts of this country should
be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as
such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers
public responsibilities.

As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of them entails the
loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move. 

15. Atty. Bonifacio Barandon vs. Atty. Edwin Ferrer (A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010)

FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the
disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss
that contained abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon
presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a notarized document
executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying,
“Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling
na abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo sa
Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a
hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet
he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in
Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and
grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to
this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating
Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of Canons 8.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil
Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the
document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating
Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the
presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29,
2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating
Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.
ISSUE: DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERR IN
FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS
JUSTIFIED?

HELD: The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to disagree with
the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating
Commissioner.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty.
Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed been
falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and
without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly
reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our
legal system.

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins
lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several disinterested
persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a
court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to show convincing evidence denying the said charge against
him.

All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court,
was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold. Consequently, the
penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and proper.

16. Linsangan vs. Tolentino (A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan, Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients &
encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of
paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising financial
assistance and expeditious collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted
and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit
of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-atty
relationship with Linsangan. Also, he attached “respondent’s calling card”:

Front

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO LAW OFFFICE CONSULTANCY

& MARITIME SERVICES W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
Tel: 362-7820
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
Fax: (632) 362-7821 Grace Park, Caloocan City
Cel.: (0926) 2701719

Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT
CLAIMS ABROAD.

In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulating of
said calling card.

Issue: W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services

Held: Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Thus, lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to
advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the
profession in the public’s estimation).

With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for purpose of gain, either
personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03, which proscribes “ambulance chasing”
(involving solicitation personally or through an agent/broker) as a measure to protect
community from barratry and champertry.
 As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by Linsangan, a lawyer’s best
advertisement is a well-merited. reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based
on his character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Professional
calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyer’s name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance.” The phrase was clearly
used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of
loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original
lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This
crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal
profession.

17. Anaya vs. Alvarez (A.C. No. 9436, August 1, 2016)

FACTS: In their Complaint, Spouses Anaya alleged that:

(1) Atty. Alvarez prepared and notarized the deeds of sale of the three (3) properties they sold;

(2) Atty. Alvarez asked them for cash in exchange for his four (4)

Allied Bank checks with the assurance that the checks would be honored upon presentment to the
drawee bank once they fell due as they would be fully funded on due date;

(3) they eventually agreed to give cash to Atty. Alvarez in... exchange for the said checks relying on
his assurance and professional stature;

(4) they withdrew from their Philippine National Bank account the amounts corresponding to the
four (4) checks issued by Atty. Alvarez, as follows:

[a] P50,000.00

P95,000.00

P50,000.00

P200,000.00... the said checks, except Check No. 35838, which appeared stale due to an erroneous
entry of the date, were dishonored by the drawee bank by reason ACCOUNT CLOSED;

(6) they made repeated... verbal and written demands on Atty. Alvarez but these remained
unheeded; and

(7) after receipt of the second demand letter, Atty. Alvarez went to spouses Anaya and offered the
amount of P20,000.00 as partial payment but they refused to accept the same as they wanted the
return of the full amount due.
Atty. Alvarez admitted his obligation but claimed that the cash he obtained from spouses Anaya was
a simple loan with an interest of two percent (2%) per month and that, at the very outset, they knew
that the checks were issued mainly as a collateral for the loan and that the checks were not funded.

no intention of defrauding them

IBP-CBD found that Atty. Alvarez violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
and recommended that he be reprimanded and be reminded to settle and pay his obligation to
spouses Anaya.

IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD and recommended the suspension of Atty. Alvarez, Jr. from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

ISSUE: WON Atty Alvarez’s actions should be meted with a sanction?

HELD: Yes. The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual
and moral qualification required of a lawyer. 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.10 Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the CPR.

Time and again, this Court has repeatedly held that the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without
sufficient funds to cover them or, worst, drawn against a closed account, constitutes willful
dishonesty and unethical conduct that undermines the public confidence in the law and the
members of the bar. It shows a lawyer's low regard to his commitment to the Oath, which he swore
to uphold and respect when he joined the legal profession.

Without a quibble, Atty. Alvarez's failure to pay his debts despite several demands, and his act of
issuing numerous checks which were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account,
puts his moral character in serious doubt. It demonstrates his lack of reverence to the lawyer's oath,
and seriously and irreparably tarnished the image of the profession he promised to hold in high
esteem. Atty. Alvarez's contention that he offered to pay his debts on a monthly basis but was
refused by Spouses Anaya fails to persuade. He should have known that a mere offer to pay a debt is
insufficient unless accompanied by an actual tender of payment. Moreover, the Court notes that the
loan was obtained by Atty. Alvarez in 2011 but up to date, no payment has been made. Likewise, his
defense that he merely issued the checks as collateral to the loan is untenable. They could not have
been used to secure a loan as it was not only unfunded, but the account to which these checks were
drawn was also already closed.

Indeed, the deliberate failure to pay debts and the issuance of a worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct. In Moreno v. Atty. Araneta, the Court disbarred a lawyer for issuing two (2) checks
despite knowledge that the said checks were drawn against a closed account. It found the said act
"abhorrent and against exacting standards of morality and decency required of a member of the
bar." Thus, the Court explained:
Indeed, in recent cases, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross
misconduct, as the effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a
wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless
commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's
definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he
owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and
duty, justice, honesty or good morals.

Thus, we have held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance
that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of
the check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude.

Nonetheless, in Co v. Atty. Bernardino and Lao v. Atty. Medel the Court suspended the respondent
lawyers for a period of one (1) year for their failure to pay just debts and for issuing worthless
checks as there was no showing of restitution on their part. In line with these, the Court finds the
suspension of one (1) year warranted.

18. De Zuzuarregui vs. De Zuzuarregui (B.M. No. 2796, February 11, 2020)

FACTS: On October 2, 2013, the OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant) received a Letter dated
September 15, 2013 from complainant, thru his counsel, Atty. Nicholas A. Aquino, informing the
Court that he was filing a complaint against respondent, then an applicant for the 2013 Bar
Examinations for being a person of questionable moral, character given the four criminal
charges that the latter was facing before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City: 2 for
Estafa and 2 for Falsification. These were all disclosed by the respondent himself in his petition
to take the bar.

In view of the pending criminal cases against respondent, the Court provisionally allowed him to
take the 2013 Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that, should he pass, he shall not be
allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the
charges against him. Respondent thereafter passed the 2013 Bar Exam. Consequently, he filed a
Verified Petition to Take the Lawyer's Oath dated April 24, 2014 before the OBC. In his petition,
he claimed that the pending criminal cases against him had already been dismissed by the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City as evidenced by the Orders of Dismissal attached. To prove
that he was morally fit to become a lawyer, respondent also submitted the following
certifications of good moral character from several people.

In its Resolution dated July 1, 2014, the Court required respondent to explain why he failed to
disclose the pendency of Criminal Case No. XV-INV13O-06821 in his application to take the 2013
Bar Examinations and to submit a certification of the status of the case, if still pending, or order
of dismissal, if already dismissed. On August 14, 2014, respondent submitted his Verified
Compliance wherein he explained that he was not able to declare said criminal case because he
was not aware of its existence at that time. He was aware only when he received a subpoena at
the a few months after he submitted his petition.
Respondent explained that of the 10 criminal cases filed against him, 9 were already dismissed
and 1 is still pending. That said suits were filed by his uncle to harass him and prevent him from
becoming a full fledged lawyer.

ISSUE: WON Respondent be allowed to take the oath.

HELD: YES

Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving
moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

In this case, respondent's admission to the Philippine Bar has long been held in abeyance due to
the criminal cases pending against him before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.

Per the rollo, it appears that all criminal charges against him has been dismissed except for the
most. recent one filed in 2019. The timing of the filing of this case, however, is highly suspect as
it came just as the other criminal charges against respondent were dismissed on June 28, 2018,
January 4, 2019, and October 15, 2019.

Thus, it can no longer be denied that the manifest intention of complainant in successively filing
these criminal cases against respondent is to prevent him from taking the Lawyer's Oath and
signing the Roll of Attorneys-the last two steps needed to be undertaken by respondent to
become a full-fledged lawyer.

The dismissal of all the other criminal charges against respondent, coupled with the various
certifications of good moral character in his favor, is sufficient for the Court to conclude that
respondent possesses the moral qualifications required of lawyers. Though it is true that the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not unjustifiably withhold this
privilege from respondent, who has clearly shown that he is both intellectually and morally
qualified to join the legal profession. And so, after almost six years of waiting, the Court finally
grants respondent's prayer for admission to the Philippine Bar.