IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the
Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 - Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice. CASTRO; July 30, 1975 - A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and (glaisa po) honesty his client’s cause must be encouraged and is to be NATURE commended; what the SC does not and cannot countenance - Petition for review of the decision of the Court of is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his Appeals client’s position. FACTS It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the - 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against merit or lack of his case. If he finds his client’s cause as Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries. defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter to -1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the - 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and of execution; Ago’s motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale, Ago moved to litigate. stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed dismissal ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING I - Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid execution; his motions were denied Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 - 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Henson; Ago failed to redeem Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid - 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 writ of possession to the properties IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the - 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid against him in the replevin suit saying it was his personal Office, Art.1, Sec. 1 obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal house LLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro, complainant vs. Attys. the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Maricris A. Villarin, final deed of sale; the battle on the matter of lifting and respondent restoring the restraining order continued February 13, 2004 - 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of possession; SC Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which between her andrespondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge also dismissed the of bigamy and concubinage against thelatter and Villarin. She also petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of - Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition therespondent and also stated that they were married in with the CA which gave due course to the petition and May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.The Supreme Court granted preliminary injunction. directed respondents to file their comment on ISSUE the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both controversy respondents unserved with notation ³moved´, same as when served HELD personally.Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, - No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the present address of respondents underpain of dismissal of her complaint for the annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent¶s address at demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of 12403Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.The their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, respondents be disbarred.The Supreme Court ordered Atty. have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co- respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that acopy of the resolution requiring comment was never ³deemed served´ upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro. Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship withanother woman are grounds for disbarment.Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married tocomplainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although theevidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, thatfact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife andmaintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do noless in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequencesof his misconduct.Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP.