PALE_CASE DIGEST
In Re: Tagorda
In Re: Edillon
In Re: Cunanan
In Re: Almacen
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Ui v. Bonifacio
A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000
Petitioner: Leslie Ui
Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio
Facts of the case:
Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty.
Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio
allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of
Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children. According to petitioner,
Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship between them
and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent
to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail. According however to
respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When respondent met
Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with children
to an estranged Chinese woman who is already inAmoy, China.
Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing
their relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of
Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further
claims that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter
lived with his children to allow them to gradually accept the
situation. Respondent however presented a misrepresented copy
of her marriage contract.
Issue:
Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for
which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law?
Held:
NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not
have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply
by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be
revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer
violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral
character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the
continued possession of good moral character is also requisite for
retaining membership in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases
to have good moral character. A lawyer may be disbarred for
“grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude”. A member of the bar should have
moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s
suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship with Ui,
and moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent was
imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact
remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with
what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
considered as an immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and to opinion
of good and respectable member of the community. Moreover,
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
grossly immoral, that is it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required
to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui
upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the
law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
In Re: Guarina
In Re Matter of Disqualification of Bar Examinees – Haron S.
Meling
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S.
Meiling in the 2002 bar examinations and for disciplinary action as
member of Philippine Shari'a Bar, Melendrez.
FACTS:
1. MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking
the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar.
a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take
the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending
criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for
Less Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words
against Melendrez and his wife in front of media
practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the
face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to
the latter.
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of
Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member
of the Bar.
2. MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases
because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
a. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled
because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as
“closed and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do
not involve moral turpitude.
b. Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of
his communications really contained the word “Attorney” as
they were typed by the office clerk.
c. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-
disclosure against Meling:
i. Meling should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a
retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the
cases filed against Meling are still pending.
ii. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is
still required to disclose the same for the Court to
ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further
orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.
Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a
member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having
become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
1. Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.”
a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there
was no valid reason why he signed as “attorney”
whoever may have typed the letters.
 PALE_CASE DIGEST
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation “attorney” violates, likewise, Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every
may render a person liable for indirect contempt lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
of court. profession.

2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.

a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special Ducat v Villalon
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of
greater importance so far as the general public and the Ronquillo v Cesar
proper administration of justice are concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.

3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant

that applicant to aver that he or she “has not been charged with
any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a
fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or
accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or
crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or
charge against him/her.”
a. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal
cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment,
done under oath at that.

Zoreta v Simpliciano

Zoreta v. Simpliciano
A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004.
Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS:
Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that he filed a complaint
for Breach of COntract and Damaes against Security Pacific
Assurance COrporation (SPAC) dated 22 June 2001 due to the
latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle Policy No.
94286, where respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano
was the latter’s counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not a
dully commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued
by teh CLerk of Court of Quezon City Mercedes S. Gatmaytan,
performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by presented
documents.

ISSUE:
WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
under the Rules of Court.

RULING:
Yes. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws (i.e. Notarial Law).
Then, too, b making it appear that he is duly commissioned when
he is not, he is indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the
lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, “Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). The lawyer