RODOLFO M. BERNARDO VS. ATTY.

ISMAEL MEJIA

90. BERNARDO vs. MEJIA FACTS: On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained
attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the following administrative offenses: 1) Misappropriating and converting to
his personal use: a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on
property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and b) part of another
sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the
registration of title of Bernardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V; 2)
Falsification of certain documents, to wit: a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985,
purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainants affidavit dates October 4,
1989); b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); and c) a deed of assignment
purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in Bernardos favor (Annex Q, par. 52,
id.); 3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained
from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also
to be insufficiently funded. ISSUE: Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests
to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. HELD: The applicant must, like a candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper
person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior
to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct
subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the
application for reinstatement. The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Fifteen years has
passed since Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although the Court does not
lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already
of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured
the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court
takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has
been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this
experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty
to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has
already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders. We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege
burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the
highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
continuing requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law.

BELO-HENARES VS. ATTY. GUEVARRA

Facts
This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by complainant
complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C.
Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and engaged in the specialized field of
cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio
(Norcio ), who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing
complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that
were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of
around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:

Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Clients Ass,
Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, dont kiss Belos ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa
Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns,
No goons, No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!

Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcios Big Bang on Friday -You will go down in
Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS,
BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles
(September 22 at 11:18pm)

Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office receptionist in
Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng
Payola ang kaso si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to
me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm

Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may extra-legal budget yon. Kaya Lang, bistado ko na
kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno
dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)

Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BA TCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NJYO AKO KUNG
MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want] to know how much she
hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions . (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx
xxx xxx
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public
hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of
P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the
instant complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
docketed as CBD Case No. 09-2551.

In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed
right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by complainant were private remarks on his private
account on Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a
part. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that
the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant.
He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public
hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her, explaining
that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa, as well as
the civil case for damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out that complainant was a public
figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment.

Issues:
1. Whether respondent can validly invoke his right to privacy.
2. Whether respondent can validlyn invoke freedom of speech.

SC Ruling
Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant
and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that
they were "private remarks" on his "private account" that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus,
when complainant accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
The defense is untenable. Before, can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity -in this case, Facebook -it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to
keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In
other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's
invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant, which
posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he
utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he
restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement
that the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends,
respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.

Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited to or
viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same -or other digital content that he
uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile -will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light
of the following:
1. Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to
interact and share in any conceivable way";
2. A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
3. The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
4. A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not Facebook
friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.

Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection
from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The user's own
Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of
whether the user tagged by the latter is Face book friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is
shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or
who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the
circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.

As to the second issue, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not
be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them
into disrepute.

A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made
with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a
"quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating
that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to
besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ( "binaboy ") his client
Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services -all these
despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even
threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa -which is contrary to one's
obligation "to act with justice."

In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly
insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are,
therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Rule 8.01 -A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 -A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded
the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private
life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is,
respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of
an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning
complainant's and BMGI' s reputation.

That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to
criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case,
respondent's remarks against complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be
administratively sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03,
8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

QUE VS ATTY. REVILLA JR.

Transcript of Conrado Que vs Atty. Revilla Jr

Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) of committing various violations on the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as stated in the
following
ISSUE

The respondents abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment in the RTC and lastly, a
petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases)to assail and
overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the
unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients.
Facts
The respondent also committed forum shopping by filing the subject cases in order
to obstruct, impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own
personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the
MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.
RULING
The respondents willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant
that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty.
Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the respondents
clients.

Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court
which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case
where the respondent asserted the falsehood.
The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of
preparation. Thus, the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in
supporting the above falsehood.
Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondents repeated
attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in
defending the interests of his client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to
observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which
are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both
violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the administration
of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and add to the congestion of the
heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction by
the MeTC and RTC even knowing fully well that the competent courts have
jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsility
and the Rules of Court
The respondents also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court in the
petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already
deceased

Conrado Que vs Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr

Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer
never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of
fact or law.
In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01,
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:

CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL

WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW

Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his clients x x x

Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his
siblings titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being
authorized to do so.
Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-
03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.
The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions
and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he
undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not
represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from the latters representative
or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional
Responsibility, and is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the
Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the
penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the respondent should beDISBARRED from
the practice of law.

LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO

- Linsangan v. Tolentino (2009) (stealing clients) Doctrines: A lawyer should not steal another lawyers
client, nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services. Facts: Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a
disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino. He alleged that Tolentino is guilty of solicitation of clients
and encroachment of professional services. Linsangan claimed that Tolentino and his paralegal, Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Linsangan said that Tolentino promised them
financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. Tolentino apparently called and texted
Linsangans clients. To support his allegations, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to convince him to sever his association with Linsangan and employ
Tolentinos services and even be able to get a loan of P50,000. Linsangan also presented Labianos
calling card which specifically states, w/ financial assistance. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and the
printing and circulation of the said calling cared in his answer. However, he later admitted that he knew
her during the mandatory hearing. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP found that
Tolentino encroached on the professional practice of Linsangan, violating Rule 8.02. He also contravened
the rule against soliciting cases for gain. The CBD recommended that Tolentino be reprimanded with a
stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty. Issues: 1. W/N the Tolentino should be
disbarred? Held/Ratio: 1. NO. HOWEVER, the SC held that he should be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one year and is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely. Rule 8.02 requires that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer. Tolentino violated such canon. The
means employed by Tolentino in furtherance of such misconduct themselves constituted distinct
violations of ethical rules. A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client, nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Tolentino never
denied having Linsangans clients in his own client list. He also did not deny Labianos connection to his
office. Hence, Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep in anothers legal practice. The SC
also noted that Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 16.04 and Canon 3 of the CPR, and Section 27, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court. The SC also reminded lawyers what professional cards should contain: (1)
lawyers name, (2) name of firm with which he is connected, (3) address, (4) telephone number, and (5)
special branch of law practiced.