Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit

Facts:
Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and Abandonment.

Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing the bar,
respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a married woman, who bore
him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case of
adultery against respondent and Benita later followed.

Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it was Rebecca
who was the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the country without his consent
and thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.

Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently, before the IBP-
CBD. Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to support her allegations of
abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the existence of prima
facie case for adultery. Respondent, however, failed to present evidence to support his claim and failed to
personally attend hearings.

The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was accepted and adopted by the IBP Board
of Governors.

Issues:

Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for disbarment?

Ruling:

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to
be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.

The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession would
not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit
unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he
grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138,9 of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough
to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity." To reiterate, possession
of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar.

Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have children with
another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems to be little
attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other woman. As we have
already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to maintain an
illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED

Sps. Rafols vs Atty Barrios

FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General
Santos City, wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge
Dizon, Jr. The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as acceptance
fee. On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence and informed
complainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel
thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. The
respondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in his sala.
The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their success up to the
Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct

HELD: YES Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the Bar
Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment. Respondent's act of introducing the
complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent was aware of the illegal purpose of the
judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the court unqualifiedly accepted the aptness
of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report and Recommendation, viz.:. . . Being the Officer of
the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court is something beyond the bounds of
the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason. By his overt act in arranging the meeting between
Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of the East Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that
he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge Dizon's desire to ask money from the
complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case which was pending before the sala of Judge
Dizon. The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of
our legal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidence in
the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition on the attorney of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. Specifically,
the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar

Garrido vs Atty Garrido

Facts:

The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for
disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint
arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair
with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same
information was confirmed when ones of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a
Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow. After a much further
investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her that Atty. Valencia and
her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their
conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render
much needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when
they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation
of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus
a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed when
they were not lawyers.

Held:

Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through
the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show
the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the
present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, the contention of respondent that they were not yet
lawyers when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral
character was already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a
person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the
expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws.
When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not
only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including
the fact of Garridos abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the
petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent with
the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment is affirmed

Mendoza vs Atty Deciembre

FACTS:
Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from Rodela
Loans, Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in six months
at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the
Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made
remittances, however, to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in
the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties,
interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No.
47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue
her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent was able to encash the same on March
30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent
from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.

Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the
amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively, which
respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15,
1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100,000.00 from respondent and that it
was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount. Complainant also claimed that respondent
victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued
to him as condition for loans.

Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against
complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was
complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15, 1999
transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason account
closed; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction; complainant filed the
disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the
former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a
complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her
signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was a mere
low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts; and if he really
intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only
P50,000.00.

ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law.

HELD:
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the
bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach
anywhere and at all times.

The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.

A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring
reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional
capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another.

In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members
of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:

* CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law 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
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands
excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious
amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for
filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest
respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession.
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could
accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its
supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
officer of the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper
and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the
office of an attorney.

As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his
privilege to practice law for life is in order.

Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco

Facts:

Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque) filed a complaint against Atty.
Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening
and attempting to assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani was conferring with his client
in the PAO office when the wife of the murdered victim, in tears, came and askef for a settlement. Moved
by the plight of the woman, Pefianco, who was standing nearby, scolded and shouted at Salvani to not
settle the case and to have his client imprisoned so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the
office, Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but this ended up with Pefianco saying that Alcantara was an idiot
for sending him out of the PAO. Also, Pefianco tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, Gago
ka!

The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Issue: W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8

Held:

Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their
fellow lawyers. Pefiancos meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the incident.
And although Pefianco was moved by the womans plight, what he thought was righteous did not give
him the right to scold Salvani and insult and berate those who tried to calm him down. Whatever moral
righteousness he had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation.
Saberon vs Atty Larong

Facts:

Complainant Saberon charged Atty. Larong respondent of grave misconduct for allegedly using abusive
and offensive language in pleadings filed before the BSP. In An answer filed by respondent Atty. Larong
with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia, that this is another in the series of blackmail
suits filed by plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious, viscous and bereft of any factual or legal
basis" complainant filed the present complaint. By resolution the court referred the case to IBP for
investigation. IBP Investigating commissioner held that the word "blackmail" connotes something sinister
and criminal. Unless the person accused thereof is criminally charged with extortion, he added, it would
be imprudent, if not offensive, to characterize that persons act as blackmail. In view thereof, he
recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of
law for 30days.IBP Board of Governor disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case
for lack of merit

Issue:

Complainant appealed challenges they resolve as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandatory
requirements of sec12(a) of rule 139-b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to writing,
clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.

Held:

This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The code of professional responsibility mandates:

Canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

Canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial officer and
should insist on similar conduct.

Rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before
the courts
Camacho vs Pagulayan

FACTS

AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due to
having published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty. Camacho who is
the counsel for the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty. Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for
violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which provides 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 only deal with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint was based on
the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the expelled students and their parents
compromise agreements in which the students waived all kinds of claims they may have against AMACC
and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. The compromise
agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the consent and knowledge of Atty. Camacho
given that he was already the counsel for the students at that time. It was averred that the acts of Atty.
Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics

HELD

YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the Code
of Professional Ethics. In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by
Atty. Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending case
filed by the students against AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact. However,
Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to negotiate with the students and the parents without at least
communicating the matter with their lawyer even being aware that the students were being represented by
counsel.

Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the
canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty. Pangulayan in
this case fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of Canon 8.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel."
Garcia vs Atty Lopez

In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged respondent Atty.
Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court, and
misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent be suspended or disbarred.

Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96 which
was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento sought the
registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This was granted by the
court. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision was upheld. The
decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order dated February 21, 2002, directed the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to
comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his
representative in contempt of court. Hearings were scheduled.

On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed his entry
of appearance and motion for postponement.

Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from the case.
He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court that he was the
counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel of record.
According to him, his attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of
respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount to unfair
harvesting of the fruit of complainant's labors since 1996.

It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia (Angelina's
daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson, Jeanette and Geneva, all
surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her relationship with Victor). Complainant
presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not
engage the services of respondent and that they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.

In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who sought
his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his services. They allegedly did
not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the next day. Because of the scheduled
hearing, he had to immediately file an entry of appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted
that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate
and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court.

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and recommendation dated
January 8, 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he
was representing. He recommended that respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder
that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its resolution passed on February 27, 2004.

We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended.

Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the causes of their
clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities. Membership in the bar
imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves
beyond reproach at all times.

Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client
relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo
Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the compulsory heirs of
the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of
them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no
authorization to represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court.

Likewise, the CPR states:

CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 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.

Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward their fellow lawyers:

CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance
as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the
case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. It is true that
without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be
considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about whom he was
representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of
record.

We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a calculated
deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He should have been more
careful about his actuation since the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the truth.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.

Cambaliza vs Atty. Cristal-Tenorio

FACTS

Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on the
grounds of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.

Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing marriage

Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor.

Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in her law
office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a senior partner, 2)
an id wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel.

HELD

Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01

Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law

Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that may only be
performed by members of the bar in good standing

Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the investigation
because such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such that desistance of the
complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the bar from those unfit to practice
law.
Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco

FACTS:

Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent for grave dishonesty,
gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Complainant narrated that respondent
undertook to give him 20% commission; later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would
receive in representing Sps. Yap, whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late
Benjamin Yap.

Respondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 17% attorneys fees of the total estate of 40M. Respondent
told complainant that the Sps. Yap assumed to pay the amount after respondent agreed to reduced fees.

Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his
profession. Respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children, and
cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children. Complainant also accused respondent
of engaging in money-lending business without authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted the case in a 25% contingent fee basis and the letter
of Sps. Yap stating that they will pay the complainants commission is a forgery.

The court referred the case to IBP wherein the commissioner recommended that the respondent be
suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyers Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon
1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
moved for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty.

HELD:

YES. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Clearly, respondent has
violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a
fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Furthermore, respondent did not deny the
accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four
children. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage
is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. However, SC finds the charge of
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. The lending of money to a
single person without showing that such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis
cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is engaged in the business of lending. Thus, the SC deems
it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year as
recommended.
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO,
respondent.

Facts:

This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido and
his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer by
manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order.

Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James
Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two
children. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage with respondent. there is another
case related to the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals and
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et
al. Respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the
custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an
alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for temporary
child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not received any
motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original
copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant
then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November
29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to respondent. While
complainant was with her children in the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied
by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He
threatened to forcefully take them away with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents
of the National Bureau of Investigation. complainant received information that a van arrived at the hotel
where respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the
hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in the morning. respondent filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition for the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of
Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and
obtained a certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution
ordering complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued.

After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a warning that another offense of this
nature will result in his disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the Report and recommendation of the Commission with the modification that the penalty of suspension
be increased to six years.

ISSUE: WON respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a
spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
RULING:

In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of
Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact that
he used and presented the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first, in his
Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, which he filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover custody of his minor children from
complainant. Since it was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have
participated in its fabrication.

Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable
if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to
the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then
that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at
the expense of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility states:

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - 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.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite
as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.

Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing
complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyers
arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of
such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a sly
manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of
speech demanded of a lawyer.

Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance are prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court which states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- A member of the
bar may be disbarred 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 willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

De Zuzuarregui vs Atty Soguilon

FACTS:

Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr.
against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct,
concealment of the truth and misleading the court.

Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for reconstitution, respondent introduced as
evidence the certified copy of the technical description and the sketch plan of the land. Exhibits F and
G,- This is not an updated survey data; this plan is used for reference purposes only. The trial court
allowed reconstitution of the title. As such, complainant submitted that respondent was remiss in not
calling the attention of the trial court to the notations indicated in the documents, emphasizing her duty to
avoid concealment of the truth from the court.

In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges against her. Anent the annotations on the
documents, respondent stated that she could not be charged of concealing facts from the court as she had
submitted the documents without alteration for the evaluation of the trial court.

The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Decided -
Clearly, what should have been fatal omissions on the part of Respondent, as counsel of the petitioner in
the Petition for Reconstitution (LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) were allowed to pass without challenge. A
simple perusal of the Decision dated June 5, 1995 (In Re: Petition for Reconstitution of TCT No. 17730,
LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) x x x shows that there was reversible error on the part of the presiding judge
of RTC, Branch 93 of Quezon City.

However, the disciplinary process does not punish errors, mistakes or incompetence. Errors and mistakes
are corrected by legal remedies such as motions for reconsideration, appeals, and petitions for relief. The
reversal of the June 5, 1995 Decision of the trial court has remedied the error committed.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not commit any act for which she should
be disciplined or administratively sanctioned.

It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the petitioner in the petition
for reconstitution of title.

RULING:

NO- Respondents failure to point out the notations in the documents she had submitted, in the Courts
opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of proof that respondent had
intended to mislead or deceive the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid bare for the trial courts
evaluation. There were no attempts on respondents part to manipulate or hide them.

In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the present case, the
Court finds that complainant, who notably owns one of the properties subject of the title sought to be
reconstituted, and is consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to
show respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In any event, it is worth mentioning that
the prejudice, if any, caused by respondents oversight against complainant and other interested parties
had been rectified later on by a different judge who set aside the order of reconstitution.

All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or
defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made without intent to harm. As plain
acts of inadvertence, they do not reach the level of professional incompetence. While professional
incompetence is not among the grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined for inexcusable ignorance as the
list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced that respondent should not be sanctioned.

The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is AFFIRMED.

Macias vs Atty Selda

FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the
lawyers oath.

Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case. He
basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the
proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election protest case would run
from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at Philippine
Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However, respondent executed an
affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only
filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by complainant, who, on several occasions
insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest. He stated that he was convinced that chaos
would result if his client was unseated, and withdrawal from the case was his best recourse. This Court set
aside complainants inhibition after finding no strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to
continue hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.

Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter
violation of the lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and recommend
to the Court an appropriate penalty against respondent. He failed to file his answer and personally appear
before the IBP investigation, as a result decision was rendered based on the pleading and was suspended
from the practice of law for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of respondent to six (6) months.

Issue:

WON respondent violated his lawyers oath and the act would be a violation of the lawyers duty of
candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Ruling:

We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.

All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and conduct
[themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to [their] clients. These particular fundamental principles are reflected in the
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:

Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 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 an artifice.

When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T.
Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation.

Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to the
bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel for Private Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative
which necessitates appropriate punishment.

The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of law
for one (1) year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal profession and
the public. For indeed, if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened, no
law can save us as a society.

Mariveles vs Atty Mallari

FACTS:

Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint against his former counsel, Attorney Odilon C.
Mallari, whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case (BP Blg 22).
After an adverse decision was rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the trial court's
decision to the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of Appeals, despite
numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari
failed to file the appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client?

RULING: YES

The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty
toward his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession and to immediately cease
and desist from the practice of law. The respondent demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack
of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a lawyer. He is
unfit for membership in this noble profession.

In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of our Code of Professional
Responsibility.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that practice,
he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law
profession. The last thing that his peers in the law profession and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
would do is to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has worked for the attainment of his career
burning the midnight oil throughout school and passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could not find
any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove
a rotten apple if only to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to the noble
profession. (pp. 249-250, Rollo)

Molina vs Atty Magat

Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and
recommending that he be reprimanded.

Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on
those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:

Rule 10.01 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.

The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he
filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not
make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for
slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from
that court that, indeed, a case was filed.

Judge Cervantes vs Atty Sabio

Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant judge on the ground that EDC (a party to
the case handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and lot putting into serious doubt his
impartiality, independence and integrity. The motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of complaint,
Atty. Sabio submitted an affidavit stating certain instances pointing out irregularities with the handling of
his case under Judge Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed.

A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes against Sabio alleging that (1) the
complaint for bribery filed by the latter against the former were unsubstantiated and motivated by plain
unfounded suspicion, and, (2) such complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional retirement.

The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a
malicious, false and untruthful complaint.

Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless bribery charge against complainant,
respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
willingly promoting or suing any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against
judges and other court officers and employees.

The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined, the
evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere
allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.

No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers. But it is
also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to, among other things, harass them.

Atty Alonso vs Atty Relamida

FACTS:

In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines,
Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that
Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision.
Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On
February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory;
thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there
was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.

However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5,
2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier.
Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief
Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules
on forum shopping and res judicata.

Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the
dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since
the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the
complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner
of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida
reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter.
Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion
for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was
null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyers oath by
serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6
months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.

The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the
courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of
justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or
repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects
himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his
duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear
to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.

The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By
his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers
mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent
Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is
AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law,
effective upon the receipt of this Decision

Afurong vs Atty Aquino

FACTS:

Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment against Victorino Flores for nonpayment of rentals
and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman Afurong and the court issued a writ of
execution. Facing eviction, Flores sought help from Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned
Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions. When the court set a pre-trial, he filed an Urgent
Motion for Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address of Citizens
Legal Assistance Office as his office address notwithstanding the fact that he was separated from Citizens
Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that he could not attend the pre-
trial conference because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour. But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a
decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing.
Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for filing frivolous
harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision, committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for
Postponement, and misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Atty.
Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts had been done without malice. In a
Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of contempt of court and
correspondingly fined by this Court for making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his
duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20
of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the commission of the acts in question. They recommended
that he be penalized with 6 months suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve
the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner

ISSUE:

WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons
of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the commission of the
acts in question

RULING:

The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law.

Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no
apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment.

Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to
attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the same day as the pre-trial of the Civil Case. Such act
violates the Canons of Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth
from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner.

Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule
71 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal
Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office.

The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of malpractice and SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for six (6) months commencing upon receipt of notice hereof.