Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

1. Oliveros, Edna
2. Magada, Jeffrey
3. Arciaga, Ana Liza
Rule 138 Rules of Court
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities
of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Immorality
Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but
includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative
of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or
is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral
indifference to opinions of respectable members of the
community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good
order and public welfare. (Madredijo v. Loyao, Jr., 375
Phil. 1, 17 (1999); Alfonso v. Juanson, A.M. No. RTJ-92-
904, 7 December 1993, 228 SCRA 239, 255-256, citing
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (1990), p. 751.)
Grossly immoral conduct
It is a conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community.
Furthermore, such conduct must not simply be immoral,
but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to 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. [Zaguirre v. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861, 867 (March 6,
2003)]
 right to practice law is a privilege burdened with
responsibilities and conditions
 an act of withdrawing from an attorney his license
to practice law as exercised by the Philippine Supreme
Court
 not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney
of a means of livelihood
 intended to protect the courts and the public from
the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure
the proper administration of justice
Rosario Delos Reyes v. Atty. Jose B. Aznar
A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against respondent
on the ground of gross immorality.
Delos Reyes is a second year medical student of the
Southwestern University (Cebu). She alleged that Atty.
Aznar, the then chairman of the said University brought her
to Ambassador Hotel in Manila and had carnal knowledge
of her for several times under threat that she would fail in
her Pathology subject if she would not submit to
respondent's lustful desires and that when she became
pregnant he had her undergo forced abortion.
Atty. Aznar denied having knowledge of the allegation in
the complaint and just presented witnesses that usually
slept with him in Ambassador Hotel.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Aznar is guilty of "grossly immoral
conduct" and may therefore be removed or suspended
by the Supreme Court.
2. Whether of not Atty. Aznar should merely be suspended
from the practice of law for not less than three (3)
years since Delos Reyes is partly to blame for having
gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that
respondent is a married man ,with children.
HELD:
1. The Court agrees with the finding of the Solicitor General
that Aznar is guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and may
therefore be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for
conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar (Sec. 27, Rule 138,
Rules of Court).
While this is not a criminal proceeding, respondent would
have done more than keep his silence if he really felt unjustly
traduced.
It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral character is put
in issue, to satisfy this Court that he is a fit and proper person
to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. He cannot dispense
with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards of
the law profession (Go v. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439 [1967]). As
once pronounced by the Court:
When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough
that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue
and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial
Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still maintains
the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is
expected of him. ... In the case of United States v. Tria, 17 Phil.
303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said:
HELD:
2. The court disagree.
Complainant's knowledge of respondent's marital status is not at
issue in the case at bar. Mere suspension for a limited period,
per se, would serve no redeeming purpose. The fact that he is a
rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does
not render respondent a person of good moral character.
Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar
(Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not
dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is
a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in
the practice of law. The ancient and learned profession of law
exacts from its members the highest standard of morality
(Quingwa v. Puno, supra).
HELD:
In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent, a
married man with children, to have taken advantage of his
position as chairman of the college of medicine in asking
complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to
Manila where he had carnal knowledge of her under the
threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she
refused.
WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar is hereby DISBARRED
and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
Maria Victoria B. Ventura v. Atty. Danilo S. Samson
A.C. No. 9608 November 27, 2012
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against respondent on
the ground of gross immorality
Ventura daughter of a former employee of Atty. Samzon alleged
that the crime of RAPE was committed against her person
sometime in December, 2001 and on 19 March 2002 when she
was merely thirteen (13). The first incident happened while he
was sleeping in the maids room at respondent house while the
other incident happened on March 19, 2002 at respondents
poultry farm in Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Samson
asked her to go with him to the farm and brought her to an old
shanty where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent
gave her five hundred pesos and warned her not to tell anyone
what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
FACTS:
Samson submits that his having sex with complainant with just
compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct.
The charge of rape, however, was dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence. Later complainant and her mother executed their
respective Affidavits of Desistance and asked for the dismissal of
the cases filed against Samson.
The IBP issue a resolution suspending Samson for 5 years.
Ventura moves for consideration arguing that the penalty
imposed by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity and
depravity of the offense. She contends that respondent
committed grossly immoral conduct by forcing himself to have
sexual intercourse with a young and innocent lass of 13 years of
age. He also took advantage of his moral ascendancy over
complainant considering that she was then staying at
respondents residence.
ISSUE :
WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. SAMSON IS GUILTY OF GROSSLY
IMMORAL CONDUCT BY HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH
VENTURA EVEN WITH THE LATTERS CONSENT.
HELD:
YES. The court find that respondents act of engaging in sex with
a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes
gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not
only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but
also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he
did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even
gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a
woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws
on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very
young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity
and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the
ethics of his profession.
HELD:
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on
him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time
was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter
between the respondent and complainant was or was not with
the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly
committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly
reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should
be disciplined accordingly.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance
of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with
the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for
remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby
DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his
oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Roy B. ECRAELA v.
Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan
A.C. No. 10676 September 8, 2015
FACTS:
Ecreala & Pangalanan are lawyers and were classmates in law
school. They used to be best of friends until their friendship's melt
down sometime in 2007.
Arthur filed a disbarment case against Ben. He avers that avers that
while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous
and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between
the years 1990 to 2007. It was complained that Ben was able to lure
women into romance by claiming that he was a bachelor. Likewise,
Ben used his position as a university professor by giving passing
grades to his female students in exchange for romantic affairs.
Despite the chances he was given, Ben failed to appear before the
proceedings at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and
merely attacked the complaint against him using technicalities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed gross immoral
conduct, which would warrant his disbarment.
HELD:
Yes. The court held that Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable
arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and
taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through
technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His
actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him
as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Court resolves to

ADOPT the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and
adopting, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Ian
Raymond A. Pangalangan is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of
violating Section 2 of A1iicle XV of the 1987 Constitution, Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.