Presiding Judge Madrid vs. Atty. Dealca, A.C. No.

7474, 9 September 2014

Facts:
Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty.
Dealcas unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition
of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
In his comment-complaint, Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the
February 14, 2007 order unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused of the
right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid
exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest
issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be
disbarred and accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law.
The SC referred the case to the IBP for investigation. During the IBPs investigation, it
found out that Atty. Dealca filed five administrative cases against judges and lawyers
when he failed to secure a favorable judgement.
Ruling:
Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits
Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative and criminal cases he filed
against judges and court personnel, including Judge Madrid. He argues that as a vigilant
lawyer, he was duty bound to bring and prosecute cases against unscrupulous and corrupt
judges and court personnel.15
We see no merit in Atty. Dealcas arguments.
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high
sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or
undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that direction should be unsullied by any
taint of insincerity or self interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary
is not advanced otherwise. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealcas complaint against Judge
Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace of idealism
or altruismin the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his
proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP
Commissioner Hababag pointed out,16 his bringing of charges against judges, court
personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions
or rulings being adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was
thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor harassment
could be a substitute for resorting tothe appropriate legal remedies. He should now be
reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according
to law, not to harass them.17

The Lawyers Oath is a source ofobligations and duties for every lawyer, and any
violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
disciplinary action.18 The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable.19
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyers Oath not to
initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly embodied in
Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility thus wise:
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the orderly
administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the
whims and caprices ofhis clients and temper his clients propensities to litigate,20 so must
he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits. While it
is the Courts duty to investigate and uncover the truth behindcharges against judges and
lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are intended to vex
and harass them, among other things.
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper
administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded
complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the workload of the
Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise ofthe right to litigate,
the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. Atty. Dealcas bringing of the
numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court personnel and his
fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part, considering that he made
allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully
deemed frivolous and unworthy of the Courts precious time and serious consideration.
Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in good grace inhibited himself"
upon his motion toinhibit in order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary."31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has recommended that Atty. Dealca
be sanctioned for filing the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely
based on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and legal bases.32
The recommendation of IBP Commissioner Hababag is warranted.
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend
the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and

liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes
certain obligations upon them.33
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
pertinently state:
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxxx
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or haveno materiality to the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority
of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the
respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the
institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation
On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the first administrative
complaint to be ever brought against Atty. Dealca.1avvphi1 In Montano v. Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, we reprimanded him for violating Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a repetition of the same
offense would be dealt with more severely. Accordingly, based on the penalties the Court
imposed on erring lawyers found violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03,40 and Canon 11, Rule
11.0441 of the Code, we deem appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of
law for a period one year. ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES
respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and
Canon 11, Rule 11. 04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a
STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Atty. Alcantara et al., vs. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 5859, 23 November 2010
In the present case, the respondent committed professional malpractice and gross
misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients after the issuance of the IBP
Resolution suspending him from the practice of law for one year. In summary, the
respondent filed against his former client, her family members, the family corporation of
his former client, the Chairman and members of the Board of Governors of the IBP who
issued the said Resolution, the Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where his former
client received a favorable judgment, and the present counsel of his former client, a total
of twelve (12) different cases in various fora which included the Securities and Exchange
Commission; the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Tagum, Davao; the Davao City
Prosecutors Office; the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline; the Department of Agrarian
Reform; and the Supreme Court.13

In addition to the twelve (12) cases filed, the respondent also re-filed cases which had
previously been dismissed. The respondent filed six criminal cases against members of
the Mercado family separately docketed as I.S. Nos. 97-135; 97-136; 97-137; 97-138; 97139; and 97-140. With the exception of I.S. No. 97-139, all the aforementioned cases are
re-filing of previously dismissed cases.14
Now, there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different
fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any
ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness. In the present case,
however, we find that the barrage of cases filed by the respondent against his former
client and others close to her was meant to overwhelm said client and to show her that the
respondent does not fold easily after he was meted a penalty of one year suspension from
the practice of law.
The nature of the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re-filing them after being
dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases, the fact that the respondent was in conspiracy
with a renegade member of the complainants family, the defendants named in the cases
and the foul language used in the pleadings and motions15 all indicate that the respondent
was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His act of filing a barrage of cases
appears to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger and frustration against his
former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity in the
custody of a clients funds.
In the case of Prieto v. Corpuz,16 the Court pronounced that it is professionally
irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous lawsuits. Thus, we stated in Prieto,
Atty. Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. Although
no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, however, this right
must be exercised in good faith.17
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper
administration of justice.1avvphil They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous
petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
A lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he
is an instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A
lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any
unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged
as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.18 Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated on 21 June
1988 is very explicit that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Further, the respondent not only filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that violated his
duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the proper administration of justice, but he
did so against a former client to whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. Canon 21 and Rule
21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility19 provides:
CANON 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or
that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
The cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and
information acquired by the respondent during the time when he was still Rosarios
counsel. Information as to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private
documents, and other pertinent facts and figures used as basis or in support of the cases
filed by the respondent in pursuit of his malicious motives were all acquired through the
attorney-client relationship with herein complainants. Such act is in direct violation of the
Canons and will not be tolerated by the Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.
Balaoing vs. Hon. Maliwanag, A.M. No. RTJ-90-580, 27 April 1993
Complainant Balaoing's wanton disregard of Our stern warning not to again file baseless
and frivolous complaints which only clog the already full dockets of this Court instead of
serve the ends of justice, and his adamant refusal to abide by the above-quoted provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which serve to regulate a lawyer's conduct in
this jurisdiction, have shown complainant Balaoing's unfitness to hold the license to
practice law. The Philippines abounds in lawyers. But as Justice Malcolm puts it, "the
Philippines do not need so-called lawyers who . . . have no ethical standards, and who are
a disgrace to a great and noble profession . . . (F)or what is needed in the Philippines is
not a greater quantity, but a finer quality, of professional men and women, . . . who have a
sincere understanding of the high requirements of the legal profession . . ." 12
Complainant Balaoing has utterly failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a
member of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative complaints are hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant Eduardo R. Balaoing is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a
copy of this decision be furnished to the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and spread on the personal records of complainant. This decision is
immediately executory.

Prieto vs. Atty. Corpuz, A.C. No. 6517, 6 December 2006

Counter-Petition Against the Petitioner
Adopting the above-findings made in the petition against the respondents, there is merit
in the separate counter-petitions filed by the latter to hold the petitioner administratively
liable for filing an unfounded and frivolous suit.
As already stated, petitioner's allegations in support of his complaint against the
respondents are baseless, as they are mere allegations founded on pure speculation and
conjecture. Sans evidence, his petition was purposely written to mislead the Court and
cast a doubt on the integrity and dignity of the respondents. Petitioner made the said
administrative case as a vehicle to unduly harass or otherwise prejudice the respondents.
Worse, in selfishly satisfying his own desire to vex the respondents, he had tarnished the
integrity of the entire judiciary and the bar.
For this reason, the petitioner should be cited in contempt, as what the Supreme Court
had pronounced in the recent case of Galman Cruz vs. Alio-Hormachuelos. Said the
Court:
"Verily, this Court is once again called upon to reiterate that, although the Court will
never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of
public accountability or diminish the peoples' faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate
to shield those under its employ from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather
than promote the orderly administration of justice.
The eloquent words of the late Justice Conrado V. Sanchez in Rheem of the Philippines
vs. Ferrer are enlightening:
By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become commonplace. Really, there could
hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20(b), Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: 'To observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.' As explicit is the
first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain
towards the Court a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the
judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.' That same canon, as
corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against
'unjust criticism and clamor.' And more, the attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a
conduct that should be 'with all good fidelityto the courts.' Worth remembering is that
the duty of an attorney to the courts 'can only be maintained by rendering no service
involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold.'
We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his
privilege. And, he may suffer frustration at what he feels is other's lack of it. That is his
misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into a
belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-

honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. He should give due allowance to
the fact that judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility.
In Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, Justice Sanchez further elucidated:
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is. "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts
to which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice." Faith
in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is
disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the
people." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "as an officer of the court, it is his sworn
and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard
towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice."
Petitioner's unfounded imputations against respondents are malicious and offend the
dignity of the entire judiciary. Scandalous as his bare allegations are, the fact that
petitioner maliciously insinuated that the respondent judge allowed access to and assisted
the respondent lawyer in the filing of his complaint desecrates and mocks the integrity of
the judiciary. Equally insolent is petitioner's baseless postulations that the respondent
judge refused to inhibit himself from Civil Case No. 1518-BG purposely to give leverage
to his former client and her lawyer.
Moreover, in filing a frivolous suit against his opposing counsel, petitioner violated
Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that "all
lawyers must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their
colleagues and should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel' and commands
all lawyers "to observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice."
We have reviewed the records, and after careful consideration thereof, we find the
conclusions of fact and the recommendations of the Investigator in the above-quoted
report to be well-taken and fully supported by the evidence on record, except for the
penalty imposed on complainant.
Atty. Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. Although
no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, however, this right
must be exercised in good faith.1
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper
administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that
only add to the workload of the judiciary.
A lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he
is an instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A
lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid unethical or

improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with
the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.2 Canon
123 of the Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated on 21 June 1988 is very
explicit that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does
not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the
exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public
trust.4 Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a
party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.5 We cannot countenance complainant's act of
misleading this Court into believing that respondent judge was still conducting the
proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG. What is evident is that even complainant was
well aware of respondent judge's inhibition therefrom. The respondent judge, in fact,
issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case.
In Retuya v. Gorduiz,6 respondent-lawyer was suspended for six (6) months for filing a
groundless suit against a former client in order to harass and embarrass her. In the case of
Arnaldo v. Suarin,7 complainant Atty. Arnaldo was fined P5,000.00 for filing frivolous
complaint. In this case, which we find analogous to Arnaldo, we hold that a fine of
P5,000.00 will suffice.
ACCORDINGLY, the above-quoted report of Justice Salonga is APPROVED with
modification as to the penalty imposed on complainant Atty. Marcos V. Prieto.
Respondents Judge Ferdinand A. Fe and Atty. Oscar B. Corpuz are exonerated and the
administrative complaint against them is DISMISSED. Complainant Atty. Marcos V.
Prieto is FINED P5,000.00 for filing frivolous suit with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Arnado vs. Suarin, A.M. No. P-05-2059, 19 August 2005
In this case, Atty. Arnado not only lacked personal knowledge of the charges but also
failed to substantiate them. He claimed that Sheriff Suarin banged at his gate, shouted and
posted notices at the gate but he failed to mention the details and the dates on which these
infractions were alleged to have been committed. He presented no witnesses to prove his
claim particularly his employees who had always informed the sheriff that he and his
wife were away each time the notices were served.
Atty. Arnado must know that it was the ministerial duty of Sheriff Suarin to implement
the writ of execution and that he was merely following a lawful order of the court. This
complaint was filed less than a month after his complaint against Judge Rosales was
dismissed. Atty. Arnado must be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. Although
no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, however, this right
must be exercised in good faith.34

As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper

administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that
only add to the workload of the judiciary.
A lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he
is an instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A
lawyer should not only help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid unethical or
improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with
the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.35
Canon 1236 of the Code of Professional Responsibility promulgated on June 21, 1988 is
very explicit that lawyers must exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
In Retuya v. Gorduiz,37 respondent-lawyer was suspended for six (6) months for filing a
groundless suit against a former client in order to harass and embarrass her. In this case,
we find the fine of P5,000.00, as recommended by OCA, commensurate under the
circumstances.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does
not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the
exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public
trust.38 Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a
party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.39
WHEREFORE, Atty. Audie C. Arnado is FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 for filing
groundless suit. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
Rayos-Ombac vs. Atty. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, 28 January 1998
The records also show that respondent filed several suits against complainant.
First, in February 1985, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa against complainant. It
appears that respondent has previously told the tenants of a parcel of land owned by
complainant that she had promised to sell them the land and that she had authorized him
to negotiate with them. He obtained from the tenants advance payment for the lots they
were occupying. Respondent then prepared a special power of attorney 3 authorizing him
to sell the land and asked complainant to sign it. Complainant, however, refused to sign
because she did not intend to make respondent her attorney-in-fact. Hence, the tenants
sued respondent for estafa. Respondent, in turn, sued complainant for estafa for allegedly
reneging on her promise to sell the land.

Then, on April 5, 1986, respondent filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Review Acts of
Administratrix as a Prelude for Formal Motion to (sic) her Discharge" in Special
Proceedings No. 5544 for the settlement of the estate of complainant's husband, pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan. 4 Respondent filed the pleading
although he was not a party to the case.
Finally, on May 19, 1986, respondent indicted complainant for "falsification by private
individuals and use of falsified documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code"
for allegedly making untruthful statements in her petition for appointment as
administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. 5
Thus, in June 1986, complainant filed with this Court a complaint to disbar respondent on
two grounds: (1) that respondent employed clever scheme to defraud complainant, and
(2) that respondent filed frivolous cases against complainant to harass her.
Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his oath as an
attorney when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money, and
later refused to return the same despite demand. Respondent's wicked deed was
aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her to
withdraw the disbarment case she filed against him. Indeed, respondent's deceitful
conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the legal profession. The nature of the
office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued
possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this decision be
attached to respondent's record in the Bar Confidant's Office and furnished the IBP and
all our courts.
Re: Administrative Case No. 44 of The Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City,
against Atty. Samuel C. Occea, A.C. No. 2841, 3 July 2002
As shown by the records, Atty. Occea gravely violated his oath of office in his handling
of Special Proceedings No. 423. The facts of the case succinctly show that through his
atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the disposition of the case for the last
thirty-eight (38) years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to the heirs, but also to
Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case. For respondent's part and that of his wife,
such prolonged litigation obviously benefited them. As aptly declared by the Court of
Appeals, the delay "can only benefit the executor or administrator" and "the longer the
proceedings, the bigger the attorney's fees." But the more tragic reality is the fact that
Atty. Occea has caused a mockery of the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the
administration of justice through his deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral
conduct. Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to practice law.

This Court has held that a lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for
the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. Neither should he use
his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes,
as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
For while he owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice.15
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed
only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.16 A lawyer
must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public
at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.17 He must faithfully
perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the
high standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions by
this Court which includes suspension and disbarment.
Clearly, Atty. Occea's conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession even
for a single moment.
It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining
in the legal profession.18 Atty. Occea has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he
engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. This Court has
repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a
lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession,19 because it cannot be denied that
the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of
the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.20
Thus, for his serious administrative offenses, punishable under Section 27 of Rule 138,
Atty. Occea deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEA is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
His name is STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Spouses Donato vs. Atty. Asuncion, A.C. No. 4914, 3 March 2004
By filing the unfounded complaint for reformation of instrument to obtain financial
gain, respondent did not only abuse and misuse the judicial processes, but likewise
harassed the complainants and forced them to litigate unnecessarily. Indeed, his act was
intended to advance his own interest at the expense of truth and the administration of
justice, a manifestation of flaw in his character as a lawyer.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed
only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.3 We have
been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the

Bar.4 We expect them at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession5 and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.6
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private capacity is a ground for the
imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an
essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of
such privilege.7 We agree with the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months for gross misconduct.
Incidentally, respondents defense of forum shopping is utterly bereft of merit. Suffice it
to state that complainants did not institute two actions grounded on the same cause of
action on the supposition that one or the other court might look with favor upon them.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION, SR. is found GUILTY of
GROSS MISCONDUCT and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective from notice.