1. BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. WILLIAM B.

BALAYO,
respondent.
[A.C. No. 10605. February 17, 2016.]

Facts:
Before the court is a verified complaint by Bienvenido Canlapan, a retired Scout Executive of the
Boy Scout of the Philippines – Mayon Albay Council against Atty. William B. Balayo for
violations of Canon Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03, and Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
According to the 70-year-old complainant, on June 26, 2014 at the mandatory conference before
the Labor Arbiter in connection with the money claim that he filed, the respondent arrogantly
threw his arm toward the complainant while menacingly saying: "Maski sampulo pang abogado
darhon mo, dai mo makua ang gusto mo!" ("Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get
what you want!")

The complainant further alleged that even though there’s already a compromise agreement
between him and Mr. Ervin O. Fajut (Chair of Mayon Council) for his money claim amounting
to P487k, the respondent influenced his client to renege on the agreement. According to the
complainant, this was allegedly in violation of a lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice (Canon 12, Rule 12.04).

Issue:
1. WON respondent Attorney is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and officer of the
court for his disrespectful utterances against an elderly
2. WON respondent Attorney violated Canon 12 of CPR
Ruling:
1. Respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and officer of the court for his
disrespectful utterances against an elderly.
The Court finds the utterances made by respondent against complainant, who was already 70
years old at that time rude and disrespectful. It was meant to annoy and humiliate complainant.
Not only was it ill-mannered; it was also unbecoming of a lawyer, considering that he did it to an
elderly and in front of co-litigants and National Labor Relations Commission employees.
Respect due to the elders is granted by the Constitution and special laws, hence, the respondent
violated Canon 1 of CPR, that is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
promote respect for law."
The respondent also violated Canon 7, rule 7.03, which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession at all times.
Lastly, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to employ respectful and restrained language in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Although the remark was allegedly made in
response to undue provocation and pestering on the part of complainant, respondent should have
exercised restraint. Careless remarks such as what is uttered by the respondent tend to create and
promote distrust in the administration of justice, undermine the people's confidence in the legal
profession, and erode public respect for it. "Things done cannot be undone and words uttered
cannot be taken back."
Hence, respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 MONTH.
2. The charge imputed against respondent on violation of Canon 12 is dismissed for lack of
merit.
What respondent did was a mere honest effort to protect the interest of his client, the Chair of the
Boy Scouts of the Philippines — Mayon Albay Council. The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a
public corporation or government instrumentality; hence, the money to be paid to complainant is
public money and subject to audit by the Commission on Audit. Hence, if the Memorandum of
Agreement causes any undue injury to any party, including the government, the parties to the
Agreement can be brought to court on administrative and/or criminal charges.

2. ARNOLD PACAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, respondent.

[A.C. No. 11246. June 14, 2016.]

Facts:

Before the Court is a verified complaint filed on November 4, 2011 by Arnold Pacao, seeking the
disbarment of Atty. Sinamar Limos for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
The wife of the complainant was charged with qualified theft by the BHF Pawnshop branch in
Mandaluyong City. At the preliminary investigation, Atty. Limos appeared as counsel for BHF.
To buy peace, the complainant initiated negotiation with BHF, through Atty. Limos, for a
possible settlement. After a series of negotiations, Atty. Limos relayed that BHF is demanding
the sum of P530k to be paid in full or by instalments. Further negotiation led to an agreement
whereby the complainant would pay an initial amount of P200,000.00 to be entrusted to Atty.
Limos, who will then deliver to the complainant a signed affidavit of desistance, a compromise
agreement, and a joint motion to approve compromise agreement for filing with the court.
The complainant gave the initial amount of 200k but Atty. Limos failed to meet the terms of their
agreement. Thereafter, a BHF representative informed them that Atty. Limos was no longer
BHF’s counsel and was not authorized to negotiate any settlement nor receive any money in
behalf of BHF.
When demanded to return the money, the respondent failed to do so.
Issue:
WON the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Limos from
the practice of law.
Ruling:
Respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos, having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
committing grave misconduct and wilful insubordination, is DISBARRED.
Respondent, being twice suspended from the practice of law for gross negligence, dereliction of
duty, and for deceitful and deceitful conduct, was warned that repetition of the same or similar
acts by her will merit a more severe penalty.
The fact that this is Atty. Limos' third transgression exacerbates her offense. The foregoing
factual antecedents demonstrate her propensity to employ deceit and misrepresentation.
By her failure to present convincing evidence, or any evidence for that matter, to justify her
actions, Atty. Limos failed to demonstrate that she still possessed the integrity and morality
demanded of a member of the Bar. Her seeming indifference to the complaint brought against
her was made obvious by her unreasonable absence from the proceedings before the IBP. Her
disobedience to the IBP is, in fact, a gross and blatant disrespect for the authority of the Court.

3. FERNANDO W. CHU, complainant, vs . ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., respondent

[A.C. No. 10573. January 13, 2015.]
Facts:
Complainant of this case, Fernando Chu, seeks for the disbarment of his former lawyer, Atty.
Jose C. Guico for gross misconduct.
Respondent Atty. Guico is the counsel of the complainant in labor disputes involving his
company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). One of the cases handled by Atty. Guico
is a complaint for illegal dismissal brought against CVC.
According to the complainant, respondent asked him to prepare P300k to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner to insure a favourable decision, and Hu complied. Subsequently, Atty Chu handed
a copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favour of CVC. Atty Guico, told complainant
to raise another P300k to encourage the Commissioner to issue the decision, but Chu could only
produce P280k.
On January 19, 2009, NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. After filing an appeal on
Court of Appeals, Chu Atty. Guico as legal counsel.
IBP Board of Governors found that Atty. Guico had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu, and
thus he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years with warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely and ordered to return the
amount of P580k with legal interest.
Issue:
WON Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Ruling:
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the
large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated
the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by actually using said
illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his
own personal interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant
breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer's Oath not to delay any man for money or
malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the
faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a whole.
In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend him from the
practice of law for three (3) years would be too soft a penalty. Instead, he should be disbarred,
for he exhibited his unworthiness of retaining his membership in the legal profession.
Accordingly, Atty. Guico is DISBARRED.

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOPE LIWANAG y

BUENAVENTURA, SANDY SIMBULAN y GARCIA and RAMIL VENDIBIL y
CASTRO, accused.
[G.R. No. 120468. August 15, 2001.] TO BE REDONE
Facts:
Lope Liwanag and two other accused were charged with the crime of highway robbery with
multiple rape committed on April 27, 1992 against Corazon Hernandez. During the arraignment,
all of them pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. However, trial on the merits ensued only against
accused Liwanag since his co-accused failed to appear at the scheduled hearings after being
released on recognizance. Accused Liwanag interposed the defense of alibi.
Complainant positively pointed at accused as one of the perpetrators of the crime. She narrated in
detail the roles played by the three accused in the perpetration of the crime.
The trial court, after due trial, rendered a judgment of conviction and sentenced accused-
appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the victim. The trial court gave
credence to the testimonies of the complainant and found accused's alibi unconvincing.
Accused-appellant interposed this appeal contending, among others, that he was deprived of his
constitutional right to effective and competent counsel.
The right to be heard by counsel simply refers to the right to be assisted by counsel for the
purpose of ensuring that an accused is not denied the collateral right to due process. The
underlying basis for due process is the concept of fairness, without which there can be no justice.
In the case at bar, the Court found accused-appellant's right to due process had been observed
and the trial was conducted in a fair manner. Hence, the Court saw no reason to doubt or
overcome the presumption that counsel de officio reasonably assisted accused-appellant in
accordance with the prevailing norms of professional conduct and his sworn duties as an officer
of the court.
The Court found the alleged failures by his counsel to safeguard his rights from the time he was
arrested up to the time he was sentenced and the alleged inadequacies in the direct and cross-
examinations of prosecution witnesses, to be ultimately inconsequential to the eventual outcome
of the case. If at all, the outcome was the result of the strength of the prosecution evidence rather
than the failures and inadequacies in the conduct of the defense. Hence, the Court affirmed
appellant's conviction but reduced the amount of moral damages awarded to the complainant.

5. MANUEL G. VILLATUYA, complainant , vs. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS,

respondent .
[A.C. No. 6622. July 10, 2012.]
The complainant of this case seeks for the disbarment of Atty. Tabalincos for unlawful
solicitation of cases, non-payment of fees to complainant and gross immorality for marrying two
women while his first marriage was still subsisting.
According to the complainant, he was employed by the respondent as a financial consultant to
assist the latter on technical and financial matters in the latter's numerous petitions for corporate
rehabilitation filed with different courts They had a verbal agreement whereby he would be
entitled to P50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in
addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He is then claiming that he was
entitled to the amount of P900,000 for the 18 Stay Orders issued by the courts as a result of his
work with respondent, and a total of P4,539,000 from the fees paid by their clients.

Complainant further accused the respondent that he set up two financial consultancy firms, Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., and used them as fronts to
advertise his legal services and solicit cases, hence violated the rule against unlawful solicitation.
Lastly, complainant submitted a Certification issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General-
National Statistics Office (NSO) certifying that Bede S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent,
contracted marriage thrice.
On his defense, the respondent denied first charges. He stated that complainant was not an
employee of his law firm — Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office — but of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc and that there was no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment
of fees and the sharing of professional fees.
On the second charge, he denied committing any unlawful solicitation. He said that his law firm
had an agreement with Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., whereby the firm would handle the legal
aspect of the corporate rehabilitation case; and that the latter would attend to the financial aspect
of the case' such as the preparation of the rehabilitation plans to be presented in court.
On the gross immorality accusation, respondent disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were
filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Respondent further informed the Commission that he had filed a Petition to Declare Null and
Void the Marriage Contract with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano.
IBP’s Report and Recommendation
1. Charge for dishonesty for the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for
lack of merit. Complainant failed to prove dishonesty on the part of respondent
2. Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for
having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he be
reprimanded for the violation. It failed, though, to point out exactly the specific provision he
violated.
3. Commission found respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01
and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. Complainant was able to prove through documentary evidence that respondent committed
bigamy twice by marrying two other women while the latter's first marriage was subsisting. Due
to the gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and
that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys

The Court’s Ruling - affirms the recommendations of the IBP.

1. The first charge of complainant against respondent for the nonpayment of the former's share in the
fees, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees
for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. Based on the allegations,
respondent had agreed to share with complainant the legal fees paid by clients that complainant
solicited for the respondent. Complainant, however, failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove
the existence of that agreement.

2. A review of the records reveals that respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the
report to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate
rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
 A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises,
though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent
with the lawyer's duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one
that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that
can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer's behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled
by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the
former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to
the practice of law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing the attorney-client
relationship may be operative in one and not in the other. In this case, it is confusing for the client if
it is not clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services. Considering, however,
that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, we affirm
the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

3. We have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and
fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing
the case. Thus, we explained in Garrido v. G arrido:

“Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings and
prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance
by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this
ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a
matter of public interest because it involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are
also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of
qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter
of public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.

We find him guilty of gross immorality under the Code.

He has not disputed the authenticity or impugned the genuineness of the NSO-certified copies of the
Marriage Contracts presented by complainant. These Marriage Contracts bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence proving that he committed bigamy, which
renders him unfit to continue as a member of the bar.

According to the respondent, after the discovery of the second and the third marriages, he filed civil
actions to annul the Marriage Contracts. We perused the attached Petitions for Annulment and
found that his allegations therein treated the second and the third marriage contracts as ordinary
agreements, rather than as special contracts contemplated under the then Civil Code provisions on
marriage. Respondent's regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his
wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of
action to take to annul a marriage under the old Civil Code provisions.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of
the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His acts
of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus, we adopt the recommendation of the
IBP to disbar respondent and order that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves the following charges against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows:
1. The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of merit. 2. Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts
of illegal advertisement and solicitation. 3. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for engaging in
bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.