Fe Ylaya

Vs
Atty. Glenn Gacott
Adm. Case No.
January 30, 2013

were convinced to sign a preparatory deed of sale for the

sale of the property. However Atty. Gacot fraudulently without
their knowledge and consent converted the preparatory deed
of sale into a Deed of Absolute Sale selling it to Reynaldo So
and Sylvia So.

Issue: Whether or not Atty, Gacott committed a violation of

the Code of Professional Responsibility

Brion, J.

Facts: Atty. Gacott represented the spouses Ylaya in the

expropriation case as intervenors for being the new
registered owners of the property. They alleged that they

Held: Yes, the Court ruled that Atty. Gacott violated Canon 16
of the Code of Professional responsibility for being remiss in
his obligation to hold in trust his clients properties. He also
violated Canon 15 for representing conflicting interest and
Canon 18 for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.

GRACE M. ANACTA
vs.
ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION

Issue: Whether or not the lawyer violated The Code of

Professional Responsibility

A.C. No. 9074

August 14, 2012

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Facts: Complainant engaged the services of respondent to

file on her behalf a petition for annulment of marriage before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The
complainant did not hear from respondent or receive any
notice from the trial court relative to the said petition. This
prompted her to make inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the RTC of Quezon City. To her surprise and dismay,
she discovered that no petition for annulment was ever filed
before the said court

Held: Yes, the lawyer violated The Code of Professional

Responsibility. Respondent committed deceitful and
dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed a
petition for annulment on behalf of the complainant and
pocketing the amount of P42,000.00. He even went to the
extent of presenting to the complainant a supposed copy of
the petition duly filed with the court. After he was found out,
he made himself scarce. He ignored all communications sent
to him by the complainant. After the disbarment complaint
was filed, he failed to file his answer despite due notice. He
totally disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite
receipt of summons. "The act of respondent in not filing his
answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating
Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt
for legal proceedings."

Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan vs Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa (A.C. No.

7360)
FACTS: Atty. Silvosa was an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of
Bukidnon and a Prosecutor in Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel
for the accused in the same case for which he previously
appeared as prosecutor. Atty. Silvosa appeared as public
prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-00 (Esperon Case), for
the complex crime of double frustrated murder and later on
November 23, 2005, Atty. Silvosa, as private lawyer and as
counsel for the accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail
pending finality of judgement of the Esperon Case.
Atty. Silvosa made an attempt to bribe Prosecutor Toribio for
30,000.00php and failed. Prosecutor Toribio excuted her
affidavit on June 14, 1999, a day after the failed bribery
attempt, and had it notarized by Atty. Nemesio Beltran, then
President of the IBP-Bukidnon Chapter. On May 18, 2006, the
Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa in Criminal Case.
27776 for direct bribery on an NBI set-up entrapment
operation, wherein, Atty. Silvosa demanded 15,000.00php
from Lanticse for the dismissal of the case and for the release
of Cadinas who was in detention for more than two years.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. 2. Whether or not a delay
of the filing for an administrative complaint exonerate a
respondent. 3. Whether or not crime involving moral
turpitude can be a ground for disbarment. HELD: 1. Yes,
respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Silvosa's attempt to minimize his role in said case would
be unavailing. The fact is that he is presumed to have
acquainted himself with the facts of the said case. Such
would constitute sufficient intervention in the case.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states "A
lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service." The Court

agree with Commissioner Funa's finding that Atty. Silvosa

violated Rule 6.03, when he entered his appearance in the
motion to Post Bail Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently
forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that "A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interest except by written consent of
concern given after a full disclosure of facts." Atty. Silvosa's
representation of conflicting interests merit at least the
penalty of suspension.
2. No, delay of filing for an administrative complaint does not
exonerate a respondent.
There is certain difficulty to dissect a claim of bribery that
occurred more than seven years ago. In this instance, the
conflicting allegations are merely based on the word of one
person against the word of another. When the integrity of a
member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he
denies the charges against him. He must show proof that he
still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at
all times expected of him. Atty. Silvosa failed in this respect.
The Court says, mere delay in filing of an administrative
complaint against a member of the bar does not
automatically exonerate a respondent. Administrative
offenses do not prescribe. No matter how much time has
elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complaint
of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring
member of the bench and bar can not escape the disciplining
arm of the Court. Atty. Silvosa's failed attempt at bribing
Prosecutor Toribio also merit at least the penalty of
suspension.
3. Yes, crime involving moral turpitude can be a ground for
disbarment.
Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness,vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his
fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to justice,
honesty, or good morals. There is no doubt that the
Sandiganbayans' judgement in Criminal Case No. 27776 is a
matter of public record and is already final.

Rule 138, Section 27 provides, A member of the bar may be

disbarred by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. The crime of direct bribery is a crime
involving moral turpitude, as ruled, in Magno vs COMELEC.

The practice of Law is a priveledge, and Atty. Silvosa has

proved himself unfit to exercise his privilege. Wherefore,
respondent Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa is hereby disbarred and
his name ordered stricken from the