1

Arranged according to their order of appearance sa Syllabus. Yung mga digests na hindi ko mahanap: Puro SCRA e. :( 1. Walter Wilkie vs Limos (http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisio ns%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=1228183275193781 4269) 2. Pomperada vs Jochico (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/nov1984/bm_68_198 4.html) 3. Bitangcor vs Tan (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/feb1982/am_528_sbc _1982.html) 4. Top Rate Construction vs. Paxton (http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/2009octoberresolutio ns.php?id=121) 5. Deslate vs Arce (http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2001/nov ember/94_1080.php)

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents. G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991 PARAS, J.: FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. ISSUE: It is whether the respondent has the ten-year practice of law requirement for him to assume such office HELD: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court. Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993) FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements: Annex A SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE Please call:521-0767, LEGAL 5217232,5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla. Annex B GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic. THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy

CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767 In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. ISSUE: Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule

prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyers services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The respondents defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that state. The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. DIGEST: Legal Ethics Case 34 (Arthur Cuevas) In Re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr. B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998 En Banc, Francisco FACTS: (1) Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, for his participation in the September 1991 initiation rites of LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITY (San Beda College of Law) wherein a neophyte Raul Camaligan died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him. (2) Petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On May 10, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case was closed and terminated.

(3) Petitioner was allowed to take the bar examinations subject to the condition that; should he pass he will not be allowed to take the lawyers oath pending approval by the Court. (4) Petitioner passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Petitioner prays that he be allowed to take the lawyers oath. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not petitioner Cuevas has the moral fitness required to take the lawyers oath? HELD: Petitioner is allowed to take the LAWYERS OATH and sign the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. RATIO: The Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Camaligan, father of hazing victim Raul Camaligan, and condoles with the untimely death of a son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his father. In his comment submitted to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits petitioners plea to be admitted to the membership to the Philippine Bar, to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court. The deliberate participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neophyte which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However, petitioner was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of the conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court then decides to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed AL ARGOSINO, petitioners co-accused to take the lawyers oath.

In Re: Argosino B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995 FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2 yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys oath of office averring that his probation was already terminated. The court noted that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated. ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office. RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family/relatives of Raul Camaligan. In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP ByLaws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and void. Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar. ANDRES v CABRERA Facts: Stanley R. Cabrera (Cabrera) was a successful bar examinee in 1977. Atty. Emilia Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case filed by Cabreras mother against a certain Atty. Perez. Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the city fiscal of Manila criminal charges against Andres (graft and corruption, falsification of public documents) Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera apparently used in his affidavit vile, incivil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic, unparalleled stupidity, idiotic) Cabreras oath-taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file an answer to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabreras reply he still used unfit language (e.g. calling Atty. Andres a moron). In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words a victim of the courts inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction 1979: The court thereafter deferred his oath-taking until he has shown that he has changed his ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court. And guess what, he still used unfit language (e.g. supreme stupidity, degradation of the administration of justice) Napikon yata yung SC, they required Cabrera to file a reply to why he should not be held in contempt. Cabrera filed an apology but

guess what, the language he used were still unfit and even insincere. Issue: W/N Cabrera should be held in contempt Held: Yes! Fine of P500 and imprisonment for 50 days. The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney. Pikon yung Supreme Court, huwag niyo silang subukan.

In Re Cunanan IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954] In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners. Resoluti, 1954on March 18 Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.

10

Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid. Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government. It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional. Wilfredo Catu vs Atty. Vicente Rellosa Facts: Respondent was the Punong Barangay of Barangay 723, Manila. Respondent, as punong barangay, presided over the conciliation proceedings between 5 petitioner and Antonio Pastor as regards a contested property. The parties to the conciliation proceedings failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, the mother and brother of the complainant, filed a complaint for ejectment against Pastor before the Metropolitan Trial Court. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant in that case. Issue: Whether or not respondent acted in contravention of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes, respondent acted in contravention of the rules established by Canon 7, particularly rule 7.03, of the Code of Professional

11

Responsibility. Respondent violated the provision stated in Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which prohibits public officer or employee from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession unless such public officer or employee is granted permission to engage in such activities by the head of the Department in which they belong. As punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, respondent should have obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Public confidence in thelaw and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.

PCGG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, et. al. GR No. 151809-12, 12 April 2005, En Banc (Puno, J.) Matter is defined any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The act of advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On July 17, 1987, pursuant to its mandate under Executive Order No. 1 of then President Corazon C. Aquino, the PCGG, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Lucio Tan, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos and others referred to as dummies of the Marcoses. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Sandiganbayan (Second Division). In connection therewith, the PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by means of taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former President Marcos. Shortly thereafter, respondents Tan, et al. filed with this Court petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction seeking to, among others, nullify the writs of sequestration issued by the PCGG. After the filing of the comments thereon, this Court referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) for proper

12

disposition. In all these cases, respondents Tan, et al. are represented by their counsel Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, who served as the Solicitor General from 1972 to 1986 during the administration of former President Marcos. The PCGG opined that Atty. Mendozas present appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in the case involving the sequestered shares of stock in Allied Banking Corp. runs afoul of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility proscribing former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. ISSUES: Whether or not the present engagement of Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in Civil Cases Nos. 0096-0099 violates the interdiction embodied in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: The petition is denied. The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of matter referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the intervention made by the former government lawyer on the matter. The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 342, defined matter as any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. Beyond doubt, the matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation andRECENT JURISPRUDENCE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila. We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case

13

No. 0096. The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist where the government lawyer does an act which can be considered as innocuous such as x x x drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading; hence, it has to be signed by respondent Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. For another, the record is arid as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings. Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned with the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its misapplication. It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice, but probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence The client with a disqualified lawyer must start again often without the benefit of the work done by the latter The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a truncated reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers in the government service. The case at bar involves the position of Solicitor General, the office once occupied by respondent Mendoza. It cannot be overly stressed that the position of Solicitor General should be endowed with a great degree of independence. It is this independence that allows the Solicitor General to recommend acquittal of the innocent; it is this independence that gives him the right to refuse to defend officials who violate the trust of their office. Any undue diminution of the independence of the Solicitor General will have a corrosive effect on the rule of law. Mr. Justices Panganiban and Carpio are of the view, among others, that the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility should be subject to a prescriptive period. Mr. Justice Tinga opines that the rule cannot apply retroactively to respondent Mendoza. Obviously, and rightly so, they are disquieted by the fact that (1) when respondent Mendoza was the Solicitor General, Rule 6.03 was not yet adopted by the IBP and approved by this Court, and (2) the bid to disqualify respondent Mendoza was made after the lapse of time whose length cannot, by any standard, qualify as reasonable. B.m.no.1678, dec. 17, 2007 Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Benjamin m. Dacanay, petitioner

14

Facts: petitioner was admitted to the bar in march 1960.he practiced law until he migrated to canada in december 1998.he subsequently applied for canadian citizenship and eventually approved in may 2004.on july 14, 2006 pursuant to ra 9225,pettioner reacquired his philippine citizenship,on that day also he took his oath of allegiance to the philippines.thereafter, he returned to the philippines and intend to resume his law practice. Issue: may a lawyer who has lost his filipino citizenship still practice law in the philippines? Ruling: no. since filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar,loss thereof terminates membership in the philippine bar and, consequently,the privilege to engage in the practice of law.the practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigner.the court also stated the rules and condition to be meted out in attorneys and admission to the bar,citing section 2 of rule 138 of the rules of court.the petition was granted subject to the compliance of the conditions set forth in the rules of court.

Cambaliza v Cristobal-tenorio Facts: Cambaliza was a former employee of the Cristobal-Tenorio Law office, he filed a case for disbarment against Respondent CristobalTenorio for deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice. Deceit: represented herself married to Felicisimo Tenorio who has a prior exiting marriage. Gross immoral conduct: disseminated libelous affidavits against a Counselor. Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer to practice by making him a senior partner in her law office. The last allegation is evidenced by the law office letterhead which included her husband as a senior partner and an ID where he signed as Atty and appearance in curt as counsel Issue: Is she guilty of violating Rule 9.01?YES Held: A lawyer shall not delegate to an unqualified person the performance of a task that may only be performed by members of the bar in good standing. By allowing her husband to appear as counsel and by representing him as an attorney Cristobal-Tenorio is guilty of violating rule 9.01.

15

She also assisted in unauthorized practice of law

KUPERS vs. ATTY. HONTANOSAS FACTS: complainant filed an administative case against respondent for allegedly preparing and notarizing contracts that are both invalid and illegal for being violative of the limitations on aliens leasing private lands. respondent was found guilty, necessitating the investigating commissioner of the ibp to suspend him from the practice of law for two months. upon review, the ibp board of governors dismissed the complaint on account of respondent's innocence, as his guilt may have been the result of ignorance of the law or plain negligence .hence, this petition lodged by the complainant. ISSUE: whether or not the dismissal of the complaint was proper HELD: no. 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 oath and in canon 1 of the CPR. aside from constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of the respondent also amount to gross misconduct under sec. 27, rule 138 of the rules of court which provides for the grounds for disbarment. Spouses Tejada vs. PALAA, A.C. No. 7434, August 23, 2007 Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Friday, February 03, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Petitioners-spouses Rosita and Amador Tejada filed a Complaint Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate disbarment proceedings against respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa for his continued refusal to settle his long overdue loan obligation to the complainants, in violation of his sworn duty as a lawyer to do justice to every man and violations of the code of Professional Responsibility. Sometime on January, 2001, respondent lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana taking advantage of his special knowledge as a lawyer represented to the petitioners that he has an alleged parcel of land and that he needs an amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could reconstitute the torrens title on the same. Respondent then induced by sweet promises and assurances petitioners spouses to finance such undertaking with a solemn commitment on his part that after he has already reconstituted such torrens title, he will deliver the same to the

16

petitioners spouses as security for the amount they had financed and which was evidenced in writing by the parties. However, after respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana had gotten the P100,000.00 amount from the petitioner spouses, respondent from that time on up to the present had intentionally evaded the performance of his due, just, legal and demandable obligations to petitioner spouses. Legal demands had already been made to respondent lawyer to fulfill all his moral and legal responsibilities to petitioner spouses but all of said demands simply went unheeded. Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint as required by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise failed to appear on the scheduled date of the mandatory conference despite due notice. Issue: Whether the respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility due to continued refusal to settle his obligation to the complainants and for his failure to participate in the proceedings before the Commission of Bar Discipline. Held: YES. Respondent, like all other members of the bar, is expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz: CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. 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.

17

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession. Indeed, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. In the instant case, respondents unjustified withholding of petitioners money years after it became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of integrity and fairness, and this is further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought against him. Instead of meeting the charges head on, respondent did not bother to file an answer nor did he participate in the proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his conduct. The Court has emphatically stated that when the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that s/he denies the charges against him; s/he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him/her. S/he must show proof that s/he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him/her. Finally, respondents acts, which violated the Lawyer's Oath to delay no man for money or malice as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him.

18

A.c.no. 7022, june 18, 2008 (samaniego vs ferrer) Marjorie f. Samaniego,complainant Vs. Atty. Andrew v. Ferrer, respondent

Facts: early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.subsequently,they cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born.the affair ended in 2000 and since then,respondent failed to supprot his daughter.ms. Samaniegao,filed a complaint against the respondent before the ibp commission on bar discipline. A member of the bar?

Issue: is the act of the respondent,constitute lacked of degree of morality required of the member of the bar? Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary actions.rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession,thus the court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law. REBECCA B. ARNOBIT vs. ATTY. PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT (AC 1481) FACT: Complainant and Respondent were married in 1942 and with 12 children. Sometime in 1968, Respondent abandoned his family and cohabited with Benita (a married woman) with whom he has 4 children. Complainant prayed for Respondents disbarment on grounds of immorality and abandonment. RULING: Respondent DISBARRED; his name STRICKEN from Attorneys Roll, for violating 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

19

legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar), and Rule 7.03 (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession). 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. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in order to maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Immoral conduct has been described 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. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. 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. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards. While the onus rests Complainant proffering the charges to prove the same, Respondent owes himself and the Court the duty to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar. Mere denial of wrongdoing would not suffice in the face of clear evidence demonstrating unfitness. When ones moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves the individual concerned to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.

Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 , August 1, 2007 Facts: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on BarDiscipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala

20

(respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath." The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster, to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children. After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father. In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families. He also said that his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment. Issue: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law. Held: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient towarrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all

21

forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law. Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law." As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer. Figueroa vs. Barranco Facts: Figueroa and Barranco were sweethearts since their teens. Their intimacy eventually resulted to a son born out of wedlock. At this point (1964) Barranco promised Figueroa that he would marry her when he passes the bar examinations. After four takes, he finally passed but did not hold true to his promise of marriage. In 1971, their relationship ended. Years later, he married another woman. When Barranco was about to take his oath to enter the legal profession, Figueroa filed a complaint relaying to the court what happened between her and Barranco. Until 1988, Barranco has filed three motions to dismiss because Figueroa still would not persecute and because for the past years, he has become elected in the Sangguniang Bayan, has actively participated in various civic organizations and has acquired a good standing within his community while the case was pending. The court sought the opinion of the IBP which recommended that Barranco be allowed to take his oath. Figueroa reappeared and intercepted the scheduled oath-taking of Barranco which led to its delay.

22

Issue: Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take his oath despite the accusations of Figueroa. Held: Yes. The maintenance of an intimate relationship between a man and a woman, both of whom had no impediment to marry and voluntarily carried on with the affair, does not amount to a grossly immoral conduct even if a child was born out of the relationship. His previous acts may be said to be a question to his moral character but none of these are so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Her allegations that she was forced to have sexual relations with him cannot lie as evidenced by her continued cohabitation with him even after their child was born in 1964. The ignobleness of his treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently punished by the 26 years that he has been prevented from entering the profession he has worked so hard for.

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING v CA

Facts: M/V Pavlodar owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC) arrived at the port of Manila. Senen Gavino was assigned by the Manila Pilot's Association (MPA) to conduct docking manuevers for the safe berthing of the vessel. Gavino stationed himself in the bridge, with the master of the vessel, Victor Kavankov, beside him. When the vessel was already about 2000 feet from the pier, Gavino ordered the anchor dropped. Kavankov relayed the orders to the crew of the vessel. However the anchor did not hold as expected. The speed of the vessel did not slacken. A commotion ensued between the crew members. When Gavino inquired about the commotion, Kavankov assured Gavino that there was nothing to it. The bow of the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier. PPA filed a complaint for a sum of money against FESC, Gavino and MPA. CA ruled in favor of PPA holding them liable with MPA (employer of Kavankov) entitled to

23

reimbursement from Gavino. Issue: Are the counsels for the parties committed acts which require the exercise of the court's disciplinary powers? Held: YES. The records show that the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario thru its associate, Atty Tria, is the the counsel of record for FESC in both GR no 130068 and GR no 130150. GR 130068 which is assigned to the Court's second division, commenced with the filing of a verified motion for extension of time which contained a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel Tria stating that to the best of his knowledge there is no action or proceeding pending in the SC, CA or any other tribunal. Reviewing the records, the court finds that the petition filed by MPA in GR no, 130150 then pending with the third division was duly filed with a copy thereof furnished by registered mail to counsel for FESC (atty Tria). It would be fair to conclude that when FESC filed its petition GR no 130068, it would aready have received a copy of the copy of the petition by MPA. It wa therefore encumbent upon FESC to inform the court of the pending action. But considering that it was a superfluity at that stage of the proceeding , it being unnecessary to file such certification of non forum shopping with a mere motion for extension, the court disregarded such error. On the other hand it took the OSG, representing PPA, an ordinately and unreasonably long period of time to file its comment, thus unduly delaying the resolution of these cases. In GR no 130068, it took 210 days before the OSG filed its comment. FESC was not even furnished with a copy. In Gr no 130150 it took 180 days before comment was filed. This disinclination of the OSG to seasonably file required pleadings constitutes deplorable disservice to the public and can only be categorized as inefficiency on the part of the govt law office. Counsel for FESC, the law firm of Del Rosario and Del Rosario, specifically its asscociate Tria is reprimaded and warned that a repetition of the same acts shall be dealt with severely. The original members of the legal tean of the OSG are admonished and warned tha a repetition shall also be dealt with more stringently.

24

Baka lang itanong kung ano ruling: The decision of the CA is affirmed. Gavino, MPA and FESC are declared solidarily liable with MPA entitled to reimbursement from Gavino for such amount of the adjudged pecuniary liability in excess of the amount equivalent to 75% of its prescribed reserved fund.

LORENZANA vs. FAJARDO FACTS: In a verified complaint dated May 27, 2002, complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his retirement on May 15, 2002, was a member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, receiving a monthly honorarium of P4,000.00. He was also a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper, also receiving a monthly allowance/ honorarium. Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law, receiving acceptance fees ranging from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. He lives in a house and lot owned by complainants family without paying any rental and refuses to leave the place despite the latters demands. HELD: Respondent failed to establish that his primary functions as Legal Officer of the Manila Urban Settlements Office allow his appointment as PLEB member, an exception to dual appointment prohibited by the Constitution and the statutes. Indeed, respondent, in accepting such appointment, has transgressed the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991. Being contra leges, respondent also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Attorneys Oath. CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. WHEREFORE, for accepting employment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City while concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement Office, in violation of the Constitution and the statutes, which in turn contravene his Attorneys Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility; and by engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from notice and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

25

TING-DUMALI v TORRES FACTS: Isidra Ting-Dumali charges Rolando Torres with violating his oath as a lawyer and canons of legal and judicialethics. Isidras parents died intestate and left many parcels of land to their 6 children (Isidra, Marcelina, Miriam,Eliseo and Vicente and Felicisima (married to Rolando Torres)) Torres consented to the forgery of Isidras signature for an Extrajudicial settlement making it appear that his wife and Miriam were the only sole heirs. Torres, on a reconstitution hearing, presented false testimony that Miriam and Felicisima were the only sole heirs Torres presented the reconstituted deed to the RD to enable them to profit by selling the land Torres contends that his acts were done in good faith believing for himself that his and the siblings had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. That the false testimony was a clear oversight. And that his conformity through his signature was pro forma because the property was a paraphernal property of Marcelina and his wife. Investigating Commissioner of IBP suggested disbarment ISSUE: WoN Torres should be disbarred? HELD: YES RATIO: 1.The lawyers oath, to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.2.A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.3.The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar