ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON v. ATTY. MARICHU C.
LAMBINO accordance with the school’s substitute parental authority‖ and ―within the bounds
ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO v. ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON
(Consolidated)
A.C. No. 6968, 9 August 2006
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Dennis Venturina (Venturina), Francis Carlo Taparan (Taparan) and Raymundo
Narag (Narag) were taken as suspects in the killing of a UP student. They were
taken into the custody of Col. Eduardo Bentain, head of the UP Security Force. Atty.
Orlando Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations Group, requested that Taparan
and Narag be taken into his custody. Atty. Marichu Lambino (Lambino),
Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, opposed Atty. Dizon’s move, he not being armed
with a warrant for their arrest. After what appeared to be a heated discussion
between Atty. Dizon and the UP officials, the students were allowed to go back to
their dormitories. Atty. Villamor committed to accompany them to the NBI the
following morning.
Atty. Dizon filed a complaint against Atty. Lambino before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for violation of Canon 1. Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibilty. He also earlier filed a criminal complaint against Atty.
Lambino before the Ombudsman for violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it unlawful
for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Atty Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Upon Atty. Lambino’s motion, the administrative
cases were consolidated.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. Lambino or Atty. Dizon acted within their official duties
HELD:
By Report and Recommendation submitted to the Board of Governors of the IBP on
June 20, 2005, CBD Investigating Commissioner Siegfrid B. Mison recommended
the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Lambino in light of a finding that she
―acted within her official duties as she safeguarded the rights of the students in
of the law as the NBI agents had no warrants of arrest.‖
With respect to the complaint against Atty. Dizon, the Commissioner recommended
to reprimand him for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in
―recklessly trying to arrest‖ the suspects without warrant.
The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution of October 22, 2005, adopted and
approved the Commissioner’s Report. The IBP thereupon transferred to this Court
its Notice of Resolution, together with the records of the cases which this Court
noted by Resolution of February 1, 2006.
When the complaint of Atty. Dizon before the Ombudsman against Chancellor
Posadas, Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and Atty. Lambino was elevated on Certiorari
and Prohibition, this Court addressing in the negative the two issues raised therein,
to wit:
(1) Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could be validly
made without a warrant; and (2) Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting
petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1829. x x x,
held that the objection of the said UP officials to the arrest of the students ―cannot
be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it
unconstitutional,‖ they having ―a right to prevent the arrest [of the students] at the
time because their attempted arrest was illegal.‖
By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, Atty.
Dizon violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides, among others that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
 BAUTISTA V. GONZALES
Facts:
Atty. Gonzales is the lawyer of the Fortunados in a civil case wherein
Atty. Gonzales agreed to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee
of 50% of the value of the property in litigation.
Issue:
Whether or not the contingent fee agreement between Atty. Gonzales and
the Forunados is valid
Held:
No. There was no impropriety in entering into a contingent fee contract with the
Fortunados. However, the agreement between Atty. Gonzales and the Fortunados is
contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer
may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation.
Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between Atty. Gonzales and
Fortunados does not provide for reimbursement to Atty. Gonzales 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. Such agreements are
against public policy. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary
relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.
NADAYAG v. GRAGEDA
Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. To this
end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend
to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the profession.
Facts:
Complainant Rosita Nadayag charged respondent Atty. Jose Grageda, a practicing
attorney and notary public in Iligan City, with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in
connection with a “Pacto de Retro” transaction wherein complainant was the
vendee.
In her letter-complaint, Nadayag alleged that Grageda prepared and notarized the
sale using a stolen Original Certificate of Land Title, as a result of which she was
swindled P108,000 because the land was already sold ahead of her using the owner’s
duplicate copy of the title.
Suspicious of the OCT’s appearance, she had brought the matter to Grageda’s
attention, to which he simply answered that the title was all right told her not to
worry as he is an attorney and knew very well the Vendor-a- Retro whose business
transactions especially notarial matter has been and in fact always handled by him.
However, the OCT was confiscated by the Iligan ROD, Atty. Baguio when the
complainant applied for registration of the pacto de retro. Nadayag filed a complaint
against the vendor-a-retro and accomplices, including Grageda coursed through the
local Brgy. Captain and city fiscal, but the information did not include Grageda,
hence this report. In his counter-affidavit, Grageda claimed that he notarization was
based on the documents presented.
Issue:
W/N respondent should be disciplined
Held:
Yes. The Commission on Bar Discipline found reason to discipline based on
respondent’s admission of notarizing the deed of sale a retro based on title presented
to him. It turns out that the title presented to him is the OCT which only the Register
of Deeds has custody of and he should have sensed foul-play or irregularity. As a
lawyer and officer of the court, he should have been alerted and should have
reported the irregularity of an OCT, which should be in the exclusive safekeeping of
the Register of Deeds, in the possession of unauthorized persons. Even if it were the
photostat copy of said Original Certificate of Title that was presented to him, the
same did not bear any certification by the Register of Deeds which could have
alerted him of the irregularity. The testimony that the Original was shown to him has
not been controverted. The Vendee was in fact in possession of the Original because
it was testified that when the Register of Deeds found that respondent was in
possession, the original certificate was confiscated by the Register of Deeds.
The Commission takes special note of a notary public acting more than a notary
public and goes beyond mere certification of the presence of the signatories, their
having signed, and having contracted. By transcending these bounds, such notary
public has entered the realm of giving “legal advice” — thus “acting also as counsel
aside from notary public” to the parties to the contract.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the
public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and
to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal
fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in
the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession.

In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in seeing to it that
justice permeated every aspect of a transaction for which his services had been
engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of a worthy member of the Bar. He
should have fully explained the legal intricacies and consequences of the subject
transaction as would aid the parties in making an informed decision. Such
responsibility was plainly incumbent upon him, and failing therein, he must now
face the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. After all,
notarization is not an empty routine. Notarization of a private document converts
such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further
proof of its authenticity.

Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
months, with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct
will be dealt with more severely.