7. Celaje v.

Soriano
Facts: A disbarment case filed against Atty. Soriano for gross misconduct. Andrea Celaje alleged that respondent asked
for money to be put up as an injunction bond, which complainant found out later, however, to be unnecessary as the
application for the writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent also asked for money on several occasions allegedly
to spend for or to be given to the judge handling the case. When complainant approached the judge and asked whether
what respondent was saying was true, the judge denied them and advised her to file an administrative case. IBP found
respondent guilty of gross misconduct in his relations with his client and recommended that he be suspended for three
years. Complainant alleged that she remitted to respondent amounts of money totaling to more or less 270k but were
not in writing. There is no ill-motive at all on the part of complainant to fabricate charges against respondent.
Unfortunately, none of the 270k was ever documented and therefore accuracy of the amounts could not be established
and sustained. However, it was found that an amount of 5,800 from the 14,800 intended for the injunction bond remains
unaccounted for. Complainant reiterated her accusations against respondent and expressed that she had been aggrieved
and misled by respondent. According to complainant, this was made possible because she was not aware of or
knowledgeable on legal matters and practices.
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice
Held: The Court resolved to adopt the recommendation.
The CPR (Canon 16) mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. He sahll account for all money or property collected or received from his client and shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. It was established that respondent could not
account for the 5,800 pesos which was supposed to be part of the sum for the injunction bond. Respondents failure to
return the money to complainant upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use
to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. As the Court pronounced, when a lawyer
receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client
showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. The
attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. As such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity, and
disinterestedness on the part of the lawyer. In Small v. Banares, the respondent was suspended for two years for
violating Canon 16 of the CPR. Considering the similar circumstances, the respondent in this case was suspended for
two years.
18. Diao VS Martinez 7 SCRA 475 (1963)
FACTS: 2 years after passing the Bar exam, a complaint was filed against Diao on false representation of his application
to the Bar examination that he has the requisite academic qualification. The Solicitor General made an investigation and
recommended to strike the name of Diao off the rolls of attorney because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education
prescribed by the Department of Private Education.
I: WON Diao may continue to practice the law profession.
RULING: The court held that his admission to the bar was under the pretense that he had acquired a pre-legal
education, an academic requirement before one could take the bar exam. Such admission having been obtained under
false pretenses is thereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such
examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law, taking the prescribed courses of legal study in
the regular manner is equally essential. His name thus was stricken out from the Rolls of Attorneys.
19. In Re: Argosino 270 SCRA 26 (1997)
FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros
Argosino was previously involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity
initiation rites but he was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was sentenced with 2 years
and 4 months of imprisonment where he applied a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by the court.
He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take the oath. He filed for a petition to allow him to take the
lawyers oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law averring that his probation was already terminated. The
court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyers oath office and admit him to the practice of law.
HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL and

MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of
justice. The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good moral character 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.
Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and has 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 that he is morally fit to the
admission of the law profession. The petitioner is then allowed to take the lawyers oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and
thereafter to practice the legal profession.
20. Collantes VS Renomeron 200 SCRA 584 (1991)
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes, house counsel for
V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the
latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute
Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of the documents with
certain special conditions between them, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from
Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondents Quezon City
house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question on the
registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. Despite the
resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties
interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as a public
official, and (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of official
tasks.
Held: (1) Yes, a lawyers misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The
lawyers oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath is a source
of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
(2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of their official tasks
(Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code
of Professional Responsibility), or delay any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest (Rule 1.03).
1. Montecillo VS Gica 60 SCRA 234 (1974)
Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo and he
successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their counterclaim thus the lower
court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar
then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals judges intimating
that he thinks the CA justices knowingly rendered an unjust decision and judgment has been rendered through
negligence and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a
second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be
punished for contempt.
Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the Philippines asking
the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then filed a civil case
against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was eventually dismissed by reason of a
compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually, the CA suspended Atty. Del
Mar from practice.
The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to
the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the
Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him.
The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not be disciplined. Del Mar in
his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been convinced that human efforts in

[pursuing the case] will be fruitless he would have continued with the civil case against the CA justices. In his
explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among the corrupt, the grafters and those
allegedly committing injustice.
Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled the case dismissed the
same.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court,
it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court
so essential to the proper administration of justice.
It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged
error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they knowingly
rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of
the law, in disposing of the case of his client.
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.
5. Pajares VS Abad Santos 30 SCRA 748 (1969)
Appellant Pajares was engaged in the business of buying and selling merchandise at her stall and appelle Udharam
Bazar & Co. was one of her creditors from whom she used to buy on credit ready-made goods for resale.
Consequently, the company sued Pajares for the recovery of a certain sum of money for the goods delivered to her in
good condition (the same having been sold), but did not make the full payment. Pajares, however, moved for a bill of
particulars, alleging that without which she would not be able to meet the issues raised in the complaint. Such having
been denied, appellant moved for a motion for reconsideration. The same was also denied and clogged the court for
seven years.
Issue:
Whether or not there has been a faithful adherence (on the part of Pajares lawyer) to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of
Court.
Held: No, there was no faithful adherence.
Clearly, there must be faithful adherence to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court which provides that the signature of
an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay and expressly
admonishes that for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action.
Had appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her creditor the reasonable
time she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness, the expenses of litigation that she has incurred would have been
more than sufficient to pay off her just debt to appellee.