1.) Angeles vs Bagay Ac 8103, Dec.

3,2014

Atty. Auerlio Angeles submitted a letter to the Executive Judge of Bataan agaunst Atty. Renato Bagay for
his alleged notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from march 2008 to april
2008.(he was attending a prayer and life workshop in mexico).

The letter contained affidavits of the persons who caused the documents to be notarized showing a
common statement that they did not see respondent sign the documents himself and it was either the
secretary who signed them or the documents came out of the office already signed.

Respondent claimed that he was not aware that those were documents notarized using his name and
that it was done by his secretary without his knowledge and authority.

The investigating commissioner found respondent, by his own admission, negligent in employing an
office secretary who had access to his office, notarial seal and records especially pertaining to his
notarial documents without proper training.

ISSUE: Whether the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of
country constituted negligence.

HELD:YES. It constitutes negligence. Sec. 9 or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a "notary
public" refers to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these rules. A secretary is
obviously not commission to perform the official acts of a notary public.

Respondent is responsible for the acts of the secretary which he employed as he left his office open to
the public while leaving his secretary in charge; fully aware that his secretary could reach his seal,
register, and copy his signatrue.

RESPONDENT also violated his obligations under CANON 7 of the CPR which directs every lawyer to
UPHOLD AT ALL TIMES THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION. The people who
cames into his office while he was away were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted
therein. They expected that their documents would be converted into public documents. Instead, they
later found out that the notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without force and effect.
By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person, their faith in
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession was eroded.

DISQUALIFIED for 2 years as notary. SUSPENDED 3 months practice of law.

2.) BANSIG vs Celera AC. 5581, January 14, 2014

Bansig filed a complaint narrating that respondent and Gracemarie Bunagan(Bunagan) entered a into a
contract of marriage. (Bansig is the sister of Gracemarie, the legal wife of respondent)
That notwithstanding respondent's marriage with her sister, respondent contacted another marriage
barely 1 year after with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba(ALBA).

Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal
existence when he contracted the 2nd marriage with Alba. She alleged that the act of 2nd marriage
constitutes grossly immoral conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.

Respondent failed to submit his comment and so Bansig filed an Omnibus Ex Parte Motion.

In a motion respondent claimed that while it appeared that an administrative case was filed against him,
he did not know the nature or cause thereof since other than the Omnibus Motion, he received no other
pleading or any processes of the court.

The court resolved to require both to submit their complaint and comments. But respondent failed
anew to file his comment. Respondent was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary
dealt with but after his prayer reasoning out that he failed anew to receive a copy of the complaint, the
court granted it and ordered Bansig to furnish him again a copy of the complaint.

Bansig manifested the dilatory tactics being undertaken by respondent in what was supposedly a simple
matter of receipt of complaint. She then attach a copy in her complaint an AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
stating that a copy of the complaint was already furnished at respondent's address in Angeles City.

HOWEVER, notices served upon respondent were being returned unserved with notation that
respondent had "moved". Even to respondent's new address in Cubao, Quezon City, the mail server fails
to locate it as it was only a mere vacant lot with debris of a demolished building.

For failing to comply with the court's resolutions to his show cause orders, the court issued a warrant to
order respondent's arrest directing the NBI to do so.

Respondent likewise failed to appear before the mandatory hearings set by the IBP, hence he was
ordered in default.

ISSUE: Whether Respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

HELD: Yes. CANON 7, Rule 7.03. In the instant case, there was preponderance of evidence as shown by
the certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates of the two marriage.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar.
He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. The act of
contracting a 2nd marriage constitutes as a grossly immoral conduct ground for disbarment.

The case, however, cannot be fully resolved without addressing respondent's defiant stance against the
Court as demonstrated by his repetititve disregard of its resolution requiring him to file his comment on
the complaint. The case has dragged on since 2002(in span of more than 10 years) with the court issuing
numerous directives for respondent's compliance.
Despite earnest efforts of the court to reach respondent, the latter conveniently offers a mere excuse of
non-receipt and that when said excuse seemed no longer feasible, he disappears. Clearly his acts
constitutes willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the court punishable under Sec.27, Rule 138 of
the RoC.

Considering respondent's prospensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor. He is UNWORTHY to continue as an officer of the court. DISBARRED!

3.) Gimeno vs. Atty. Zaide AC 10303, April 22, 2015

Gimeno filed a complaint against atty. Zaide alleging the following:

That Atty. Zaide notarized a document even before his receipt of his notarial commission; making false
and irregular entries.

That Gimeno was Zaide's former client and that despite this previous lawyer-client relationship, Zaide
appeared against her in the complaint for estafa by one Somontan, thereby violating the prohibition
against thre representation of conflicting client's interests.

That Zaide called Gimeno as a "notorious extortionist" in the same administrative complaint that
Somantan filed. And that Zaide once referred to his opposing counsel as someone suffering from
"serious mental incompetence" in a pleading.

In his answer:

Zaide argued that he did not do the notarization act. As it appeared on the notarial page, his notarial
stamp and signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan. Zaide
allege that Gimeno falsified his signature to make it appear that he notarized it.

On the issue falsification of his notarial entries, Zaide contended that he needed to simultaneously use
several notarial registers to accomodate their growing number and clients.

Zaide also deny Gimeno as being his client since Gimeno engaged the services of the firm which he
worked as an associate but that her real counsel was Atty. Zaragoza.

He also deny using intemperate, offensive and abusive language.

The IBP suspended him in the practice of law for 1 year. He sought reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether Zaide violated his duty of courtesy towards his fellow lawyers.

Held: Yes. Based on Canon 8 and 11. Also in Rule 8.01 and 11.03, there is a prohibition on the use of
intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in a lawyer's professional dealings, whether with courts,
his clients, or any other person.
As shown in the records, Atty. Zaide, in the reply he drafted in the ombudsman case, called Gimeno a
"notorious extorionist". And that in another case, he used the following language in presenting his
comment against his opposing counsel:

. . .her declaration in public put a SHAME, DISGRACE, INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the whole
justice system and DOJ in particular, where TAXPAYERS PAID FOR HER SALARY OVER HER
INCOMPETENCE AND POOR PERFORMANCE AS PROSECUTOR . . . a clear manifestation that the PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR SUFFERS SERIOUS MENTAL INCOMPETENCE as regard her mandate. . . .

While a lawyers is entitled to present his case with enthusiasm, it does not justify the use of offensive
and abusive langauge. IN KEEPING WITH THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, A LAWYER's
LANGUAGE EVEN IN HIS PLEADINGS, MUST BE DIGNIFIED.

-----Other issues..

As to the usurpation of the notarial office, the circumstance of having not yet issued his details as a
lawyer or a notary public at the time of the notarization, coupled with Gimeno's absence of evidence
with his claim, it was unlikely that he notarized the document before his admission to the bar.

However, Zaide violated the notarial practice by maintaining different notarial registers in several offices
resulting to documents being irregularly numbered and entered. Sec.1(a) Rule IV of Notarial Practice
Rules provides that it should be a "chronological offical register" and that "only one active notrial
register at any given time" shall be kept.

As to the conflict of interest issue: The court applied the test as to "whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty" and whether the lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to "use against a former client and confidential info obtained by his previous
employment".

Applying the said test, the court found no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared before Gimeno
as the cases in dispute were on entirely different subject matters and is not in any way connected.

4.) Noble vs Atty. Ailes, A.C. 10628. July 1, 2015

Maximino Noble alleged that respondent Orlando Ailes(orlando) filed a complaint against his own
brother, Marcelo Ailes(marcelo) whom Maximino represented. The said complaint stated Orlando's IBP
data "IBP-774058-12/07/09-QC". Maximino claims that at the time of the filing of the complaint,
Orlando's IBP # should have reflected his IBP annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009.

Sometime later, another case was filed by Marcelo against Orlando for grave threats and estafa. When
Maximino was furnished with a copy of the complaint, he discovered that Orlando was maligning him
through text messages dissuading Marcelo to retain Maximino's service as counsel for his incomptence
and exorbitant fees. among others.
 xxx Better dismiss your hi track lawyer who will impoverish you with his uncoscionable fees. Max
Noble, as shown in court records, never appearead even once, that's why you lost the pre-trial
stage

xxx get rid of Noble as your lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot of money from you

xxx daig mo nga mismong abogadon mong polpol.

Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Service of Counsel in the complaint for damages, which
stated that Maximino "xxx has never done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a
matter befitting his representation as a seasoned lawyer asidfe from charging enormouse fees"

Maximino then filed the instant complaint charging violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 and the entire
Canon 8.

Orlando denies the charges against him and that his late submission of his MCLE and IBP is not a ground
for disbarment and that the Notice to Terminate Service of Counsel was done by request of Marcelo. He
also insisted that the allegedly offensive language in his text messages sent to Marcelo was used in a
"brother-to-brother communication" and were uttered in good faith.

IBP Commissioner recommended the dismissal of Orlando but it was dismissed by the IBP board of
governors. Aggrieved, Maximino filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether Orlando violated his duty of courtesy toward fellow lawyers.

HELD: Yes. A lawyer must at all times, whether in public or private life, act in a manner beyond reproach
especially when dealing with fellow lawyers.

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.

The IBP found that the text messages were casual communication considering that they were conveyed
privately. To the Court's mind however, the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly since it was
clearly intended to malign Maximino as evident of the word "polpol". Likewise, Orlando's insistence that
Marcelo immediately terminate petitioner's services indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his
colleague.

A lawyer's words and action directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. It is
inconsequential that the statements were relayed in private. Lawyers are expected to observe nobility
and uprighteousness whether in their public or private lives.

ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and STERNLY WARNED.

5.) Binay-an vs. Addog A.C. 10449, July 28, 2014

The complainants are heirs of Barot Binay-an and plaintiffs for Annulment of Documents filed with the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), La Trinidad, Benguet, against the defendants
Angeline Damaso (Damaso). Atty Addog represented the defedant Damaso.

According to complainants, Damaso called for a meeting in Mandarin Restaurant with Paul and
Bienvenido Palos who are co-heirs and co-plaintiffs in the civil case. During the meeting, Damaso and
respondent were able to convince Paul and Bienvenido to execute an Affidavits of Desistance with
respondent subsequently notarizing it. The affidavits was submitted to the NCIP but was denied. The
NCIP reminded respondents of the ethical consideration of having such affidavits submitted.

Respondent later withdrew his representation of the defendants. Later on, a complaint for respondent's
misconduct was filed.

On his answers, respondent admit being present in the meeting and allege that the affidavits were freely
executed and that he was not "lawyering for paul and bienvendio"; and that he submitted the affidavits
in behalf of his client and not in representation of the complainants, among others.

During the mandatory conference hearing, respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared and
notarized the joint affidavit of desistance signed by Paul, Isabela Daniel and Romana Palos. As regards
the affidavit of Bienvenido, the respondent denied drafting the same; nevertheless, he admitted that he
notarized it in his office.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Addog violated his duty to be fair to fellow lawyers.

HELD: YES. He violated Rule 8.02 which provides that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer.

Respondent knew that Paul and Bienvenido were represented by counsel, (Atty. Selmo). His act of
preparing the affidavit of desistance, even assuming that it was only the joint affidavit of Paul, Isabela
Daniel and Romana which he drafted and notarized was true, nonetheless encroached upon the legal
functions of Atty. Selmo. Worse, the respondent even disclosed that the affidavits of desistance were
executed by the affiants in exchange for a certain sum of money.

It was unscrupulous of the respondent to compel some of the complainants to execute the affidavit of
desistance without the knowledge and agreement of Atty. Selmo. In this regard, the respondent should
have been mindful of the canon dictating that:

A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel.

SUSPENSION 6 months with warning.

6.) TAPAY vs BANCOLO A.C. 9604, March 20, 2013

a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

Facts: Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration
received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit
to a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt
practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a co-employee. The Complaint was allegedly
signed on behalf of Divinagracia by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally
chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them. Atty. Bancolo
denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia and declared that the
signature in the Complaint was not his. Thus, Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying the said
signature. This affidavit was used by Tapay and Rustia in filing a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia
of falsifying the signature of Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia, denying the same, presented as evidence an
affidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office
accepted Divinagracias case and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed
by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolos instructions. The case was then dismissed.

Tapay and Rustia then later filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines a complaint to disbar Atty.
Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolos law partner. The complainants alleged that not only were
respondents engaging in unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification
of documents used to harass and persecute innocent people. In their Answer, respondents admitted
that due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permitted that the pleadings be signed in his name by the
secretary of the law office. After investigation, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, submitted her Report. Atty. Quisumbing
found that Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility while
Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same Code, and recommended that Atty. Bancolo be
suspended for two years from the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished for his failure to
exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of
the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. He likewise categorically stated
that because of some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapay and Rustia
were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance. Clearly, he violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which provides:

CANON 9 A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED

PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Atty. Bancolos authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the
signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Further, under the Rules
of Court, a counsels signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best
of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not interposed
for delay. Thus, by affixing ones signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to
certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. For violating rule 9.01 of the CPR, Atty.
Bacolo was meted with the penalty the suspension from the practice of law for one year.

7.) Villahermosa vs Caracol AC 7325, January 21, 2015

Villahermosa is respondent in two land cases involving cancellation and recovery of lands in Valencia,
Bukidnon. The subject land was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had two sons,
Fernando and Efren.

The case stemmed when the agrarian reform law was enacted on October 21, 1972, for which
emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the
program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainants spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. A deed
of absolute sale was executed in favor of Raymunda.

However, on March 2, 1994, the DARAB issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the emancipation
patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433(the subject land) stating that it was not covered by the
agrarian reform law. This decision was appealed to and affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the
Court of Appeals.

In 2002, Atty. Caracol, as Addl Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant, filed a motion for execution with the
DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of the March 2, 1994 decision. 3 years
later on 2005, Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition
which he signed as Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela

Villahermosa filed the present complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions
since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs/counsel of record. Villahermosa said that Efren could
not have authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had already been dead for
more than a year and that Atty. Caracols real client was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly
bought the same parcel of land. Villahermosa presented affidavits of Efrens immediate family
members stating that Efren never executed a waiver of rights and that the parcel of land was sold to
Villahermosa through a deed of sale. The affidavit also stated that they were familiar with Efrens
signature and that the signature in the waiver was different from his usual signature.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Caracol violated his duty of candor to the courts.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Caracol has been less than candid about his representation.
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as counsel for a person without being
retained nor may he appear in court without being employed unless by leave of court. Even if a lawyer is
retained by a client, an attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of either client or the lawyer.
In the present case, Atty. Caracol was presumed to have authority when he appeared in the proceedings
before the DARAB. The records are unclear at what point his authority to appear for Efren was
questioned. Neither is there any indication that Villahermosa in fact questioned his authority during the
course of the proceedings.

However, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at the time he filed the Motion for
Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious
lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his clients passing and presented authority that he was
retained by the clients successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted.

In view of his actions of contravening his lawyers oath and in violation of Canons 8 and 10 and Rule
10.01 of the CPR, he is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

The court highlights that due to the particular nature of an attorneys function, it is essential that they
should act with fairness, honesty and candor towards the courts and his clients. Under Rule 10.01 of the
CPR:

A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

This flows out from the lawyers oath which each lawyer solemnly swears to uphold the law and court
processes in the pursuit of justice. Thus, a lawyer must be more circumspect in his demeanor and
attitude towards the public in general as agents of the judicial system.

8.) Umaguing vs. De Vera, AC 10451, Februart 4, 2015

Complainant Umaguing ran for the position of SK Chairman in the SK Elections for the year 2007 but lost
to her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one (1) vote. Because of this, complainants filed an election protest
and enlisted the services of Atty. De Vera.

Atty. De Vera had more than enough time to prepare and file the case but the former moved at a glacial
pace and only took action when the November 8, 2008 deadline was looming. De Vera then rushed the
preparation of the necessary documents and attachments for the election protest including two
affidavits which he personally prepared and to be signed by two (2) material witnesses, Lachica and
Almera, who were unfortunately unavailable at that time.

To remedy this, Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed Lalong-Isip and Fielding to look for the nearest kin or
relatives of Lachica and Almera and ask them to sign over the names.
The signing over of Lachicas and Almeras names were done by Christina Papin and Elsa Almera-
Almacen, respectively. But when Lachica discovered the falsification, he immediately disowned the
signature affixed in the affidavit and submitted his own Affidavit, declaring that he did not authorize
Papin to sign the document on his behalf.

Judge Belosillo of the MeTC ruled that the affidavits filed by Atty. De Vera were falsified. Furthermore,
Atty. De Vera did not appear before the MeTC.

For lack of trust and confidence in the integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, as well as his breach of
fiduciary relations, the complainants asked the De Vera to withdraw as their counsel and filed this
complaint for disbarment.

Atty. De Vera vehemently denied all the accusations lodged against him by complainants. He averred
that he merely prepared the essential documents for election protest based on the statements of his
clients and that the signing of Lachicas falsified Affidavit was done without his knowledge.

ISSUE: whether or not Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable.

HELD: YES. Atty. De Vera sanctioned the submission of a falsified affidavit, i.e.,Almeras affidavit, before
the court in his desire to beat the November 8, 2008 deadline for filing the election protest of
Umaguing. A mere general denial which cannot overcome Elsa Almera-Almacens positive testimony
that he indeed participated in the procurement of her signature and the signing of the affidavit, all in
support of the claim of falsification.

Furthermore, it is highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to have remained in the dark about the
authenticity of the documents he himself submitted to the court when his professional duty requires
him to represent his client with zeal and within the bounds of the law. Likewise, he is prohibited from
handling any legal matter without adequate preparation or allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.

The Lawyers Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from
doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct
himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well
as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as
well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that
the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that [a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

SUSPENDED 6 MONTHS PRACTICE OF LAW.