The Lawyer and Society
covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
Canon 1- Duty to uphold the Constitution and Obey
the Law
Brion Jr. v Brillantes
Facts:
Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for
disbarment, avers that respondent violated the court’s
decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon
respondent Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-
92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge
Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from assuming any post in
government service, including any posts in government-
owned and controlled corporations, when he accepted a
legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA), from 1998 to 2000. Said
consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th
member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta
(Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal
consultancy agreement, this was subsequently renewed
as a Special Consultancy Agreement.
Respondent admits the existence of the Legal
Consultancy Contract as well as the Special Consultancy
Contract. However, he raises the affirmative defense that
under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum
Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, services rendered
pursuant to a consultancy contract shall not be
considered government services, and therefore, are not
Issue:
Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter
and spirit of the court’s decree in the Atienza case.
Held:
By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain
to a contractual employee, albeit in the guise of an
advisor or consultant, respondent has transgressed both
letter and spirit of the Court’s decree in Atienza.
The Court finds that for all intents and purposes,
respondent performed duties and functions of a non-
advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual employee
of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply, there is a
difference between a consultant hired on a contractual
basis (which is governed by CSC M.C. No. 27, s. 1993)
and a contractual employee (whose appointment is
governed, among others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on
Appointment and other Personnel Actions). The lawyer’s
primary duty as enunciated in the Attorney’s Oath is to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
promote respect for law and legal processes. That duty in
its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal
orders of the courts. Respondent’s disobedience to this
Court’s order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch,
instrumentality, or agency of government, including
government owned and controlled corporations, cannot
be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special
consultancy contract.
Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to
pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).
Bautista v Gonzales adm matter 1625
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista,
respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of
lawyer’s oath. Required by this Court to answer the
charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill
of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to
amend his complaint by making his charges more
definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondent’s
motion and required complainant to file an amended
complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint
for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed the
following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients,
namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha
Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to
pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent
fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in
litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to
enter into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the
development into a residential subdivision of the land
involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No.
T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%)
interest thereof as attorney’s fees from the Fortunados,
while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the
Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with
the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above,
reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee,
provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all
expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious
misconduct involving a champertous contract?
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law
for six (6) months.
The Court finds that the agreement between the
respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a
lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear
the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of
Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in
good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement
between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does
not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation
expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an
attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to
enforce the client’s rights is champertous [citation
omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy
especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed
to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration
of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute
[citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts
violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and
his client, for which the former must incur administrative
sanctions.
Feliciano v. Bautista lozada
Unlawful, Dishonest & Immoral Conduct
Arciga v. Maniwang1608
Facts:
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a
relationship with Arciga, then a medical technology
student. They started having a sexual relationship in
1971. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. The two then went to
Arciga’s hometown to tell the latter’s parent about the
pregnancy. They also made Arciga’s parents believe that
they were already married but they would have to have
the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang passes
the bar exams. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth
certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath
taking, he stopped communicating with Arciga. Arciga
located his whereabouts and there she found out that
Maniwang married another woman. Arciga confronted
Maniwang’s wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted
physical injuries upon Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang
grounded on gross immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted
that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise
to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those
promises because of Arciga’s shady past because
apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before
her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s
case is different from the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and
Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited.
Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt
nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment (though not
much discussion was provided by the ponente as to
why). But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to
state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to
what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral
delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer
unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule
implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior
to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that
warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined
as “that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
the good and respectable members of the community”.
Zaguirre v. Castillo 4921
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three
children when he had an affair with Carmelita
Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997,
while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the
release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant
allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The latter, who was
already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the
child and promising for her support which did not
materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found
him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo
filed a motion for reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the
paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In his
defense, the latter presented different certificates
appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his
good moral character. His wife even submitted a
handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband
and father despite the affair. More than a year since the
original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated
his willingness to support the child to the Court and
attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to
Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in
the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross
immoral conduct, making him punishable of Indefinite
Suspension.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Atty.
Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral conduct and
should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite
Suspension. The attempt of respondent to renege on his
notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to
support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable,
unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount
to self-stultification.
This Court has repeatedly held: "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. More specifically, a member
of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of
mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards." While respondent does
not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant
he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that
"men by nature are polygamous," and that what
happened between them was "nothing but mutual lust
and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is
appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the
respondent.
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and
active service to the community is a just and reasonable
ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite
suspension to a definite suspension of two
years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s
further claim for the support of her child should be
addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
Cordova v. Cordova 3249
FACTS: In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being
married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his
wife and children to cohabit with another married woman.
In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a reconciliation
where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But
apparently, Cordova still continued to cheat on her wife
as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman
and worse, he took one of his children with him and hid
the child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment
against Cordova. Eventually, multiple hearing dates were
sent but no hearing took place because neither party
appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic message
to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she
and her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since
Salvacion failed to submit her evidence ex parte, merely
recommended the reprimand and admonishment of
Cordova.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely
reprimanded.
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he
presents evidence that he has been morally reformed
and that there was true reconciliation between him and
his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the bar, one
requirement is that he possesses good moral character.
That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with
upon admission to membership of the bar. On the
contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing
condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.
The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a
member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct
that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of
the community, conduct for instance, which makes “a
mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage”
such was the case in the case at bar.
Crimes involving moral turpitude
Rodolfo D. Pactolin Admn Case 7940

FACTS: In May 2008, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No.
161455 (Pactolin vs Sandiganbayan), affirmed the
conviction of Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin for violation of Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification by a Private
Individual). It was duly proved that Pactolin falsified a
letter, and presented said letter as evidence in a court of
law, in order to make it appear that his fellow councilor
acting as OIC-Mayor illegally caused the disbursement of
public funds. In said decisions, the Supreme Court
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for appropriate administrative actions against
Pactolin.
ISSUE: What administrative sanctions can be imposed
upon Atty. Pactolin considering his conviction?
HELD: Rodolfo Pactolin should be, and is henceforth
disbarred. The crime of falsification of public document is
contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and,
therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude
includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
As a rule, the Supreme Court exercises the power to
disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of
disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct
affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. But it
has always been held that it is appropriate to disbar a
lawyer if he is convicted by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude. Further, Pactolin’s situation is
aggravated by the fact that although his conviction has
been affirmed, he has not served his sentence yet.
Effect of Executive Pardon
In re lontok 1922
FACTS: On February 27, 1918, Atty. Lontok was
convicted of the crime of bigamy by CFI Zambales.
Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision as well
making it final and executory. On 1922, Atty. Lontok was
granted by the Governor General an executive pardon.
Now, Atty. General seeks the disbarment of Marcelino
Lontok because of having been convicted of the crime of
bigamy despite the pardon given to him.
ISSUE: W/N the effect of pardon may prevent Lontok
from disbarment.
HELD: YES. It is contended by the government that while
the pardon removes the legal infamy of the crime, it
cannot wash out the moral stain; on the other hand it is
contended by the respondent that the pardon reaches the
offenses for which he was convicted and blots it out so
that he may not be looked upon as guilty of it.
SC followed the ruling in the case of Ex Parte Garland
(1866) wherein the SC held that: “A pardon reaches both
the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of
the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the
punishment and blots out of existence the guilt; so that in
the eye of the law, the offender is innocent as if he had
never committed the offense. If granted before conviction,
it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities,
consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted
after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities,
and restore him to all his civil rights; it makes him as it
were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and
capacity.
Atty. General’s petition is denied.
In re Vailoces 439
FACTS:
 October 24, 1952, the Court, upon a finding
that the respondent Tranquilino Rovero had been found
guilty by a competent court of a violation of Section 2703
of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended,
Smuggling and sentenced to pay a fine of P2,500.00.
on July 7, 1956, the said respondent filed a petition for
reinstatement, claiming that his disbarment had caused
him untold misery and mental anguish, and that he had
been granted an absolute and unconditional pardon for
his crime and restored to full civil and political rights, and
pledged, "on banded knees", "not to commit the same or
similar mistake in the future nor to involve himself further
in any transaction which might tend to drag down his
name as lawyer and as an ordinary dignified citizen. The
Court denied his petition. On March 10, 1958, the
respondent Tranquilino Rovero again implored the Court
to be readmitted to the practice of law, 4 but the Court
turned a deaf ear to his plea. The respondent Tranquilino
Rovero, "now in his twilight years (71 years old)" asks
humbly and earnestly of the Court to be reinstated in the
Roll of Attorneys "before crossing the bar to the great
beyond.
To be reinstated to the practice of law, it is necessary that
the respondent must, like any other 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.
ISSUE:
 WON he has been disciplined long enough to
render his punishment lifted
HELD:
 It appears that since his disbarment in 1952, the
respondent 'Tranquilino Rovero has honorably dealt with
his citizens. He had demonstrated his moral rehabilitation
and reformation as to be fit, once more, to engage in the
practice of law.
 Mr. Rovero has also held high positions
of trust in commercial establishments.
He had been elected the president of the Filipino
Industrial Corporation; the vice-president of the Meteor
Company, Inc., and the president of the Rural Bank of
Hermosa (Bataan), a position which he holds up to the
present.
 of a crime involving moral turpitude. Murder, is without a
Testimonials have been presented regarding the high
esteem accorded him in the community to which he
belongs. The president of the Aklan Bar Association and
the parish priest of Christ certified to his good conduct at
the King Church.
His conduct has also merited the approval of the late
Pres. Ramon Magsaysay who granted him an absolute
and unconditional pardon for his crime. Under the
circumstances, and considering that more than 28 years
had already passed since he was disbarred, the
respondent Tranquilino Rovero has been sufficiently
punished and disciplined.
WHEREFORE, the order of disbarment is lifted and
Attorney Tranquilino Rovero is hereby reinstated in the
legal profession and restored to the practice of law.
In Re Gutierrez 363
FACTS: Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for
the murder of one Filemon Samaco in 1956. He was
sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In 1958,
after serving a portion of the penalty, he was granted a
conditional pardon by the President. He was released on
the condition that he shall not commit any crime.
Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a disbarment
case against Gutierrez by reason of the latter’s conviction
doubt, such a crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred
considering the fact that he was granted pardon.
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not
absolute but conditional. It merely remitted his sentence.
It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be
judged upon the fact of his conviction for murder without
regard to the pardon (which he invoked in defense). The
crime was actually qualified by treachery and aggravated
by its having been committed in hand, by taking
advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being
municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of motor
vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as
to justify his being purged from the profession.