Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
L-2018 December 10, 1982 group and brought them to the NBI office together with the robbed
documents for investigation. 1
UY CHUNG SENG and CHING UY SENG, complainants,
vs. Required to comment, respondent alleged that there was absolutely no
ATTY. JOSE C. MAGAT, respondent. truth to the charge imputed to him; that the incident became the
subject of a criminal charge for Light Threats filed by the NBI Agents
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: with the Office of the Fiscal of Manila (IS No. 77-26882) which, after
preliminary investigation, was dropped for "utter insufficiency of
On March 27, 1979, Uy Chung Guan Seng and Ching Uy Seng filed a evidence"; and that after the lapse of more than one year from the date
verified Complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose C. of said criminal complaint, complainants through Atty. Eliseo Legaspi,
Magat alleging that the following circumstances warranted his reopened the case before this Tribunal merely to harass him and assail
exclusion from the Roll of Attornies: his character and conduct. Respondent prayed that the complaint be
dismissed for utter lack of merit.
On 22 August 1977 (should be 11 August 1977), Complainant CHING
UY SENG a ROBERT CHING received a letter from Respondent Atty. On June 5, 1979, upon consideration of the Complaint and the
JOSE C. MAGAT, threatening to report him to the government Comment, this Court resolved to suspend respondent from the practice
authorities if he would not get in touch with him (MAGAT) and his of law effective immediately upon notice, and until further orders. The
clients with respect to a bunch of documents and papers pertaining to Court further resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for
Complainants' business. Such documents turned out to be a part of the investigation.
articles which were stolen from the office/residence of Complainants on
2 June 1977. In the morning of 13 August 1977, UY CHUNG GUAN SENG On September 24, 1979, the Solicitor General 2 submitted his Report
a HENRY CHING; his lawyer, Atty. ELISEO LEGASPI; and NBI Agent and Recommendation, quoted in full hereunder:
RODOLFO DAHIROC went to the Office of Atty. MAGAT at Room 512
Madrigal Bldg., Escolta, Manila, in response to the above-mentioned REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
letter. Atty. MAGAT initially demanded the sum of P500,000.00 in
exchange for the robbed documents. CHING, LEGASPI and Agent COME NOW the undersigned counsel and after investigation of the
DAHIROC insisted on seeing the documents first and to talk with Atty. complaint in the above-entitled case pursuant to the Resolution dated
MAGAT's clients before they negotiate the terms of the return of the June 5, 1979, notice of which was received by the Office of the Solicitor
documents. The meeting was reset on 15 August 1977 at 3:00 p.m., General on June 11, 1979, respectfully submit this Report and
during which Atty. MAGAT informed them that their demand was Recommendation.
reduced to P300,000.00 on a "take it or leave it" basis. Atty. MAGAT's
"clients" who brought in the robbed documents turned out to be the 1. This case stemmed from a letter dated August 11, 1977 sent by
suspects in the robbery of the office/residence of Complainants on 2 respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat to Mr. Robert Ching, one of the
June 1977, Atty. MAGAT insisted that HENRY CHING produce complainants herein, which, reads as follows:
P30,000.00 to show his good faith in pushing through with the
negotiation. It was at this juncture that the NBI Agents confronted the J.C. Magat Law Office
R-512 Madrigal Building (In.) JCM
Tel. No. 48-23-01 The letter was personally delivered by respondents secretary to
complainant Uy Chung Guan Seng, brother of complainant Robert
PERSONAL DELIVERY 528 San Fernando, or 107 Renta St. Ching (pp. 243, 246, t.s.n., July 23, 1979). Enclosed with the letter was a
columnar sheet containing a list of invoices indicating the amount
Binondo, Manila actually paid, as shown in the original invoice, and the amount reflected
in the triplicate thereof (Exh. C-1, p. 28, Record; p. 246, t.s.n., Id.).
Dear Mr. Ching:
2. On August 11, 1977, the letter was referred to Atty. Eliseo P. Legaspi.
Mr. Felicisimo Cruz and his companions came to this office with bunch In the afternoon of that same day, Atty. Legaspi and Uy Chung Guan
of documents and papers and statements of accounts pertaining to the Seng went to the office of respondent Magat at Rm. 512 Madrigal Bldg.,
business transactions of the A-1 Photo Litho and Photo Engraving. Their Escolta, Manila, but Atty. Magat was not there, However, they met Atty.
intention was for me to first get in touch with you about the disposition Magat on the Escolta sidewalk in front of the Lyric Theater. Atty. Legaspi
of the same or go direct to the Government office to examine the said and Atty. Magat conferred about the letter and the latter told the
documents with original invoices and triplicates thereof showing former that he will communicate with his client. Atty. Magat also told
discrepancies in amounts. Atty. Legaspi to come back on August 13 (pp. 94-98, t.s.n., July 9, 1979).
I do not know whether you will be interested. If you are interested, you 3. In view of the development, Atty. Legaspi wrote on August 12, 1977
may get in touch with me in my office possibly in the afternoon of any a letter to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI for
day except Sunday and Saturday, although I am here on Saturdays up short) seeking assistance "by way of assigning one of your agents in my
to 1:00 p.m. planned conference with Atty. Magat tomorrow" (Exh. D, p. 29, Records;
pp. 28-29, Id.). Conformably with the request, the NBI assigned Agent
If I do not hear from you upon receipt of this letter either today or Rodolfo Dahiroc to assist Atty. Legaspi (p. 32, t.s.n., Id.).
tomorrow, I will consider your silence as indifference and that I can
proceed to do what I believe is proper. 4. On August 13, 1977, Atty. Legaspi, Agent Dahiroc, and complainant
Uy Ching Guan Seng, also known as Henry Ching, went to the office of
VeryJCM/ Atty. Magat at Rm. 512 Madrigal Building to Negotiate about the
contents of the letter Exhibit "C", but the group of Felicisimo Cruz
P.S. Enclosed is a sample of transactions of your company indicating the mentioned in the letter did not arrive. Atty. Magat asked Atty. Legaspi
actual amount paid on the original invoice and the amount shown on who Agent Dahiroc was, he being then dressed in T-shirt. Atty. Legaspi
the triplicate thereof and likewise the amount not reported in our introduced Agent Dahiroc as his assistant (p. 102, t.s.n., July 9, 1979).
statement of account. Atty. Magat told Atty. Legaspi to return on August 15 (p. 35, t.s.n., July
6, 1979).
5. On August 15, 1977, Atty. Legaspi accompanied by Agent Dahiroc Jesus Salita, Robert Rajotte and a certain Rogelio Villagracia under
and Henry Ching, again went to the office of Atty. Magat. Upon arrest; they also seized the articles and documents brought by Rodolfo
reaching the place, Atty. Magat told the trio that the group of Felicisimo Salita and his group (p. 41-42, t.s.n., July 6, 1979; p. 357, t.s.n., July 25,
Cruz will arrive at 5:00 o'clock that afternoon. While waiting for the 1979; pp. 383-384, t.s.n., July 27, 1979). Agent Dahiroc, after introducing
group of Felicisimo Cruz to arrive, conversation ensued, during which himself as an NBI agent, apprised Atty. Magat that the documents
Atty. Magat demanded P500,000.00 for the return of the documents seized were the subject of a robbery case and that from the tenor of the
mentioned in the letter. This amount was reduced to P300,000.00, with letter, Exhibit 'C'. there was a case of extortion against respondent (pp.
the request, however, that an advance payment of P30,000.00 be made 358-359, t.s.n., July 25, 1979). Agent Dahiroc then invited Atty. Magat to
to show good faith; upon paying the balance, all the documents will be go to the NBI for investigation (p. 359-361, Id.). Atty, Magat pleaded
returned (pp. 35-37, Id.; pp. 260261, t.s.n., July 23, 1979). Shortly that as a brother in the profession, he wanted to talk with him on a
thereafter Felicisimo Cruz and his group arrived, bringing along with personal level, so he invited Agent Dahiroc to go with him to the
them two sacks of invoices and papers and the black portfolio of Uy Kentucky Cocktail Lounge which was near his office. Agent Dahiroc
Chung Guan Seng. Atty. Magat showed Uy Chung Guan Seng the folder acceded because the other persons arrested were already in the
or plastic bag containing papers and the portfolio to verify whether custody of the other NBI Agents. At the Kentucky Cocktail Lounge Atty.
those were really their papers (pp. 37-38, t.s.n., July 6, 1979). It turned Magat told agent Dahiroc that if the latter wanted to, they can make
out that the person introduced as Felicisimo Cruz is Rodolfo Salita the some money. Agent Dahiroc answered that there was no money in the
driver of complainant Robert Ching, who qqq with P 40,000.00 owned documents because they had been brought to the attention of the
by Robert Ching on December 3, 1976 (p. 39, Id.), and who had sent a government and that there was a complaint for robbery. Agent Dahiroc
letter to Uy Chung Guan Seng on July 1, 1977 (Exhs. L and L-1) admitting further told Atty. Magat that there was no way for them to have a happy
participation in the robbery committed at the latter's office on June 2, agreement', so the former brought the latter back to the office (pp. 362-
1977 in which papers and documents pertaining to their business, 363, t.s.n., July 25, 1979; pp. 386387, t.s.n., July 27, 1979). At the office,
among other things, were taken. Rodolfo Salita's companions were Atty. Magat insisted on his right not to go to the NBI, so Agent Dahiroc
Jesus Salita and his brother-in-law Robert Rajotte (pp. 3940, Id.). called up the NBI Regional Director and informed him of the
unwillingness of Atty. Magat to go with the group to the NBI. As a
6. When the group of Rodolfo Salita, alias Felicisimo Cruz, arrived with compromise Atty. Magat was allowed to remain after he had prepared
the documents subject of the negotiation, and after verification of and signed a written undertaking that he would report to the NBI office
sample documents, Atty. Legaspi community gate secretly with Agent the following day for questioning regarding the matter (Exh. Q p. 37,
Dahiroc to get reinforcements and then in a loud voice ordered Dahiroc Records; pp. 364-366, t.s.n., July 25, 1979). Contrary to his written
and Uy Chung Guan Seng to get the P30,000.00 being demanded by promise, Atty. Magat did not report to the NBI Office (p. 367, Id.).
Atty. Magat as earnest-money (p. 40, Id.; p. 135, t.s.n., July 9, 1979).
Whereupon Uy Chung Guan Seng and Agent Dahiroc left Atty. Magat's Agent Dahiroc prepared an inventory of all the articles and documents
office and went downstairs. Uy Chung Guan Seng proceeded to the seized during the raid at the office of Atty. Magat (Exh. S); NBI
Insular Bank of America in Dasmarinas pretending to get the money photographers took pictures of the office of respondent where the raid
there, while agent Dahiroc went to get reinforcements (p. 40, t.s.n., July took place, as well as of the persons arrested and the articles seized
6, 1979; pp. 262-264, t.s.n.. July 23, 1979). After a few minutes, Agent (Exhs. F, G, H, I, J, and K pp. 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 73, Records), On August
Dahiroc and the reinforcements arrived and they placed Rodolfo Salita, 19, 1977, Agent Rodolfo Dahiroc and Leopoldo Cotaco submitted their
written report on the incident in question (Exh. R, pp. 7-14, Records; pp. Even assuming as true the allegation of respondent that he did not
367-371, Id.). actually demand the amounts mentioned above for himself but that he
merely conveyed the demands made by the group of Felicisimo Cruz,
7. In the course of their conversation during one of his meetings with such act is still violative of an attorney's oath. For then, respondent
agent Dahiroc and Atty. Legaspi, respondent Magat told the duo that assisted his clients in a scheme which he knows to be dishonest. He
as counsel for Felicisimo and his group in the transaction, his share knew that the documents presented by Felicisimo Cruz to him are proof
would be one-third (1/3) of the amount which they would receive from that the government has been unlawfully deprived of much needed
the complainants (pp. 402-404, t.s.n., July 27, 1979). taxes. As testified to by him, respondent, after verifying the invoices,
was convinced that the A-I Litho and Photo Engraving was cheating the
8. Respondent Atty. Magat admits that he wrote and sent the letter, government (pp. 83-84, Id.). He knew too that the decree of Cruz and
Exhibit "C", to complainant Robert Ching but he claims that he prepared his group to extort money from the complainants in exchange for the
the same at the request of Felicisimo Cruz after being shown sales anomalous documents was illegal. Despite such knowledge and
Invoices of A-I Photo Litho, a firm managed by Robert Ching, and after awareness, he connived with his clients in violating the law. And for
noticing discrepancies in the amounts appearing in the originals and in what? It is in consideration of the one-third share he would receive from
the duplicates of said invoices (pp. 7-8, t.s.n., July 30, 1979). He also the proceeds of the transaction. The assistance he extended to his
admits that on August 13, 1977, he showed Atty. Legaspi the sample of clients' dishonest scheme and his connivance with them in violating the
the sales invoice of the A-1 Photo Litho containing the anomalous law render the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct which
discrepancies aforementioned (p. 13, Id.). He, however, denies that he warrants his disbarment or suspension.
demanded the amounts mentioned by the witnesses for the
complainants because what he did was merely to convey the demands The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for
of his clients (pp. 18-23, Id.). the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes
such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as
9. The actuations of respondent Atty. Magat constitute malpractice and amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which
gross misconduct. Writing and sending the letter Exhibit C and he may be removed or suspended (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21).The
demanding from the complainants the amount of P500,000.00, later on assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be
reduced to P300,000.00, with P30,000.00 as downpayment to show dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify
good faith, in consideration for the return of anomalous invoices and disbarment. (In Re Terrel 2 Phil. 266, 267-268; Emphasis supplied).
documents, is highly reprehensible. Such acts constitute not only threat
but extortion. Respondent's protestations of good faith in sending the 10. The grounds for disbarment or suspension enumerated in the
letter to the complainants are not convincing if indeed he had no statute should not be taken as a limitation of the general power of the
ulterior motive, he should have referred the documents brought by courts to disbar or suspend a lawyer. For the power of the court over its
Salita and his companions directly to the BIR instead of addressing a officers cannot be restricted. A lawyer may be removed not only for
letter with a veiled threat to the complainants and having the letter malpractice or dishonesty in his profession but also for his gross
delivered personally to them. misconduct which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of
the privileges which the law confers upon him (In Re Puno, 19 SCRA
439).
It has been repeatedly ruled that the purpose of disbarment is to answer to a complaint prepared and filed by him in a certain case (t.s.n.,
protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of officers of the pp. 77- 78, July 30, 1979).
court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those
who exercise this important function shag be competent, honorable RECOMMENDATION
and trustworthy men in whom courts and dents may repose confidence
(Santos vs. Dichoso, 84 SCRA 622). In the case at bar, respondent has WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully
not exercised honesty and trustworthiness and has failed to have up to recommended that the respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat be disbarred.
the high standards of the law profession.
In line with this recommendation, the undersigned counsel are filing
It is the duty of a member of the bar to avoid all appearances of together with this Report and Recommendation the corresponding
impropriety and his actuations should be beyond suspicion. It is true complaint. Manila, September 19, 1979. 3
that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until the
contrary is proved, but this presumption has been rebutted by the clear The Complaint filed by the Solicitor General also prays that respondent
and convincing evidence presented by the complainants and their be disbarred, that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys; and that
witnesses. his certificate of admission to the bar be recalled.
The actuations of respondent constitute attempted extortion although In his Answer to the Complaint, respondent reiterated the contentions
what was filed against him in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila was in his Comment and added that his "sole defense" is anchored on the
only for light threats. Of course, respondent was able to show that the letter he wrote to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on August 12,
charge for light threats lodged against him was dismiss, as shown by 1977, attached to his Answer as Annex " 2-A ", which reads:
the memorandum of Assistant Fiscal Billy M. Apalit and the
memorandum of 2nd Assistant City Fiscal Artemio M. Cusi J. C. MAGAT LAW OFFICE
recommending the dismissal of the charge of light threats filed against
him (Exh. 2, 2-A, 2-B & 3, pp. 81-84, Rec.). But the dismissal of the R-512 Madrigal Building
criminal complaint against respondent does not preclude his
disbarment. Even granting that the acts committed by him may not be Escolta, Manila
sufficient to make him criminally liable, the same nevertheless
Tel. No. 48-23-01
constitute gross misconduct and/or malpractice, which are grounds for
disbarment. Moreover, the purpose of disbarment, as stated above, is
CONFIDENTIAL
not to punish the offender but to protect the courts and the public from
his pernicious activities.
August 12, 1977
It is not amiss to mention at to juncture that respondent is facing two
The Honorable Commissioner
other administrative cases before this Honorable Court, filed by his own
cousins, one involving an affidavit notarized by him and the other an Bureau of Internal Revenue
Quezon City Escolta, Manila
Sir: Sir:
On August 10, 1977, a certain Mr. Felicisimo Cruz came to my office and Upon your request, as per your letter to this Office dated October 19,
brought to my attention several books of accounts and invoices 1979, which was received by the office of the Commissioner on October
reflecting anomalies committed by the owner thereof, the A-1 Litho 22, 1979, enclosed is a xerox copy of your original letter to the
Photo and Litho Engraving company with offices at 528 San Fernando, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated August 12, 1977. The original
Binondo, Manila. letter is on file with the docket of the tax investigation report on A-1
Litho Photo and Litho Engraving Co. submitted by Special Agents of the
I have no control of the documents, however, because they are always Tax Fraud Division.
with the said Mr. Cruz and he told me that he stole an those documents
from the company because he was allegedly dismissed illegally. The said letter was received by the Records Division, BIR, Quezon City
on September 6, 1977, and this was transmitted to the Tax Fraud
I have written the head of the company to have a meeting with the said Division, BIR, on September 7, 1977. The Post mark of the Manila Central
Mr. Cruz in my office if he wants to see those documents again. In the Post Office on the envelope which contained said letter, bears the date
meantime, knowing that the meeting will not immediately take place, I August 16, 1977 p.m.
have written to your office with a view to examining the documents if
they are again brought into my office by Mr. Cruz. Very truly yours,
I am not sure you will he interested but if your office would be, you may EFREN I. PLANA
send one of your men in my office until the meeting goes through.
Acting Commissioner of Internal
Very truly yours,
Revenue
(SGD.) JOSE C. MAGAT 4
By:
Likewise attached to respondent's Answer to the Complaint as Annex
"2" is the reply of the BIR to Atty. Magat's request that said office furnish REYNANDO A. SUAREZ
him with a copy of his original letter. The reply reads:
Chief Tax Fraud Division
October 25, 1979
TAN 1549-655-7 5
Atty. Jose C. Magat
Upon the oral and documentary evidence, we find the charges WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat is hereby disbarred; his
substantiated and the Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor name is ordered stricken off the Rollo of attorneys; and his Certificate
General thorough and well founded. of Admission to the Bar is hereby recalled.
Although respondent's confidential letter to the BIR is dated August 12, SO ORDERED.
1977, or ostensibly a day after respondent's letter to Robert Ching, and
prior to the raid on respondent's office on August 15, 1977, the BIR Teehankee (Acting C.J.), Makasiar, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin,
letter of October 25, 1979, supra, specifically stated "the Post mark of Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
the Manila Central Post Office of the envelope which contained said
letter, bears the date August 16, 1977 p.m. ". Evidently, respondent's Fernando, C.J., & Concepcion, J., are on leave.
letter was mailed the day after the raid on August 15, 1977 as an
afterthought designed to stave off impending liability. His defense at Aquino and Plana JJ., took no part.
the hearing that the Post Office was delayed in stamping the letter is
puerile The presumption of regularity in the performance of official De Castro, J., I reserve my vote.
functions (Rule 131, Sec. 5 [m]) has not been overcome. Besides, if
respondent were really motivated by the desire to expose tax
anomalies, he could have written the BIR directly. There was no need to
Footnotes
have written his letter (Exhibit "C") to Robert Ching.
1 pp. 4-5, Rollo.
The dismissal of the criminal complaint for Light Threats against
respondent by the City Fiscal's Office (Exhibits "2", "2-A", "2-B" and "3",
2 He was assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Lorenzo G. Timbol and
pp. 81-84, Record) will not preclude the fact that respondent has not
Solicitor Jesus O. Albay
exhibited honesty nor show trustworthiness in the discharge of his
duties as a member of the Bar. The dismissal of the criminal complaint 3 pp. 90 1 00, Rollo.
does not exonerate him of profession al misconduct.
4 p. 113, Ibid.
The proper disciplinary action against respondent is disbarment for
malpractice and gross misconduct. He has shown himself unfit for the 5 p. 112, Ibid.
office and unworthy of' the privileges which the law confers upon him. 6
6 In Re Puno, 19 SCRA 439 (1967); In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 568 (1923).
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, A.C. No. 7136 He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainants) then-
Complainant,
fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING, who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled Mary Ann) Tantoco
YNARES-SANTIAGO, with whom he had three children.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO, After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed
versus AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
that from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read I
AZCUNA, love you, I miss you, or Meet you at Megamall.
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at
GARCIA,
night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL VELASCO, JR., and
EALA, NACHURA, JJ. not go home from work.When he asked about her whereabouts, she
Respondent. Promulgated: replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she
August 1, 2007 was busy with her work.
x---------------------------------------------
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent
- - - - - -x
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted
DECISION them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
PER CURIAM: On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint celebration at which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her
[1]
for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the
M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for grossly immoral conduct and conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of
unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. furniture, and her share of the household appliances.
In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account: Complainant later found, in the masters bedroom, a folded social card
bearing the words I Love You on its face, which card when unfolded
contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly
parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later
wedding to Irene, reading:
learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also
learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January
My everdearest Irene,
18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
By the time you open this, youll be moments away from walking
down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find In his ANSWER,[3] respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card
meaning in what youre about to do.
on which the above-quoted letter was handwritten.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:
fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us
to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because theres
a bigger plan for the two of us? 14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions
done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as together. For instance, in or about the third week of September
you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU! 2001, the couple attended the launch of the Wine All You Can
promotion of French wines, held at the Mega Strip of SM
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first Megamall B at Mandaluyong City. Their attendance was
time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the reported in Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24
final moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will September 2001, on page 21. Respondent and
love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together Irene werephotographed together; their picture was
again. captioned: Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala. A photocopy of
the report is attached as Annex C.[4] (Italics and emphasis in the
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough original; CAPITALIZATION of the phrase flaunting their
memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though adulterous relationship supplied),
that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO! respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
4. Respondent specifically denies having ever
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in
AND YOURS ALONE! paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being
that their relationship was low profile and known only to
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS the immediate members of their respective families, and
IM LIVING MY TWEETIE YOULL BE![2] that Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned,
was still known to be legally married to Mary
Eternally yours, NOLI Anne Tantoco.[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
respect to the formality of the marriage contract.[7] (Emphasis
On paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading: and underscoring supplied)
15. Respondents adulterous conduct with the complainants Respondent admitted[8] paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT reading:
wife and his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own
family, demonstrate his gross moral depravity, making him 18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the
morally unfit to keep his membership in the bar. He flaunted his Constitution and obey the laws. The Constitution regards
aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a piece of marriage as an inviolable social institution and is the foundation
paper. Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to of the family (Article XV, Sec. 2).[9]
complainants bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to
And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:
continue his love for her until we are together again, as now
they are.[6](Underscoring supplied), respondent stated in his
19. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
ANSWER as follows:
Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to
uphold. In pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the
5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph complainants wife, he mocked the institution of marriage,
15 of the Complaint regarding his adulterous relationship and betrayed his own family, broke up the complainants marriage,
that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity thereby making commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal
him unfit to keep his membership in the bar, the reason being profession.[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
that Respondents relationship with Irene was not under respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
scandalous circumstances and that as far as his relationship
with his own family:
7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in
paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the reason being that under
5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful
the circumstances the acts of Respondent with respect to his
relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still
purely personal and low profile special relationship with
occasionally meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware
Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
of Respondents special friendship with Irene.
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of
xxxx
the Rules of Court.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar
by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
evidence that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
weight than the other[32] which is the quantum of evidence needed in
an administrative case against a lawyer. The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground
for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis and underscoring On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that
supplied), he had an extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit brief
and discreet, and which act is not so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree in order to merit disciplinary
under scandalous circumstances.[34]
sanction. We disagree.
x x x x,
And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:[38]
an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual
intercourse with a woman elsewhere. The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not
the respondent did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It is
Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without
enough that the records of this administrative case
the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner,
conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances.[35] The case at bar as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with
who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct
and indicative of an extremely low regard for the
discreetly. Apropos is the following pronouncement of this Court
fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable
in Vitug v. Rongcal:[36] behavior renders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which
his license confers upon him.[39] (Underscoring supplied)
of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyers oath he took before
admission to practice law which goes: Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the
investigation of the case before the IBP Commissioner, filed a
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of
Manifestation[41] on March 22, 2005 informing the IBP-CBD that
law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the
complainants petition for nullity of his (complainants) marriage to Irene
supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I
will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the had been granted by Branch 106 of the Quezon City Regional Trial
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do Court, and that the criminal complaint for adultery complainant filed
no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not against respondent and Irene based on the same set of facts alleged in
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
the instant case, which was pending review before the Department of
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer Justice (DOJ), on petition of complainant, had been, on motion of
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all complainant, withdrawn.
good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any The Secretary of Justices Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
complainants Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review reads:
God. (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family)
Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final
of the Constitution reading: resolution of the petition for review, we are inclined to grant the
same pursuant to Section 10 of Department Circular No. 70
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the dated July 3, 2000, which provides that notwithstanding the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same
at any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which appealed resolution shall stand as though no appeal has
been taken.[42] (Emphasis supplied by complainant)
echoes this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife
to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.[40]
That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently
declared void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
place before the marriage was declared null and void.[43] As a lawyer,
Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03
themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven involving both respondents. This becomes all the more
apparent by Mojes subsequent relocation in No. 71-B,
otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.[44] In
11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks
carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial
away from the church where she had exchange marital vows
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and with complainant.
despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an
institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be It was in this place that the two lovers apparently
cohabited. Especially since Ealas vehicle and that of Mojes were
a lawyer.
always seen there. Moje herself admits that she came to live in
the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was where he
As for complainants withdrawal of his petition for review before the held office. The happenstance that it was in that said address
DOJ, respondent glaringly omitted to state that before complainant that Eala and Moje haddecided to hold office for the firm that
filed his December 23, 2003 Motion to Withdraw his Petition for both had formed smacks too much of a coincidence. For one,
the said address appears to be a residential house, for that was
Review, the DOJ had already promulgated a Resolution
where Moje stayed all throughout after her separation from
on September 22, 2003 reversing the dismissal by the Quezon City complainant. It was both respondents love nest, to put
Prosecutors Office of complainants complaint for adultery. In reversing short; their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a few
the City Prosecutors Resolution, DOJ Secretary months later when Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby
Simeon Datumanong held: hospital of St. Lukes Medical Center. What finally militates
against the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the
certificate of birth of the girl, Moje furnished the information
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant
that Eala was the father. This speaks all too eloquently of the
would, in the fair estimation of the Department, sufficiently
unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of the
establish all the elements of the offense of adultery on the part
respondents. Complainants supposed illegal procurement of
of both respondents. Indeed, early on,
the birth certificate is most certainly beside the point for
respondent Mojeconceded to complainant that she was going
both respondents Eala and Moje have not denied, in any
out on dates with respondent Eala, and this she did when
categorical manner, that Eala is the father of the child
complainant confronted her about Ealas frequent phone calls
Samantha Irene Louise Moje.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring
and text messages to her. Complainant also personally
supplied)
witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two
occasions. Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he
knew Moje to be married to complainant[.] In fact, he (Eala)
himself was married to another It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be
woman. Moreover, Mojes eventual abandonment of their prosecuted de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant
conjugal home, after complainant had once more confronted complainants motion to withdraw his petition for review. But even if
her about Eala, only served to confirm the illicit relationship
respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the
Information for adultery were filed in court, the same would not have Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made
part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
been a bar to the present administrative complaint.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. And let copies of the Decision be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to
Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,[46] viz: Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge Manila
is not a bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards
of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 1982
enables one to escape the penalties of x x xcriminal
law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES,
ANTONIO G. PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and
in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume
REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL, petitioners,
in trying criminal case[47] (Italics in the original),
vs.
HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate Commissioner of
the Securities & Exchange Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C. ACERO,
this Court in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. R. G. VILDZIUS, ENRIQUE M. BELO, MANUEL G. ABELLO,
Atty. Naldoza,[48] held: SERVILLANO DOLINA, JUANITO MERCADO and ESTANISLAO A.
FERNANDEZ, respondents.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of civil and criminal cases.
This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction is
poised against the Order of respondent Associate Commissioner of the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granting Assemblyman
passed on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747.
Bar of the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
A question of novel import is in issue. For its resolution, the following
dates and allegations are being given and made:
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon a) May 14,1979. An election for the eleven Directors of the International
1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) a private corporation, was held. Those
in charge ruled that the following were elected as Directors:
Responsibility.
Attorney Aves' allegation that it was St. Luke's counsel, Attorney Castro, On the basis of the evidence presented before Judge Bernad, the Court
not Grecia, who stole the pages from the medical folder and slipped is convinced that the charge against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is
them to an unidentified man, is an incredible fabrication. Not only is it true. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves' medical chart and passing
directly contradicted by Mrs. Robles and Ms. Sandico, but, significantly, them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of the Rules of
Attorney Aves failed to mention it during the confrontation with the Professional Responsibility as well as canon 7 thereof which provide
man inside Judge Capulong's chamber where he (Attorney Aves) was that:
present.
Canon 1. . . .
His other allegation that he saw the man inside the courtroom
afterwards, is not credible for he would have called the attention of Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
Judge Capulong who, he knew, had been looking for the man to and deceitful conduct.
ascertain his identity.
Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
In view of his obvious bias for his counsel, Aves' testimony was properly the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
disregarded by the investigator, Judge Bernad. Likewise wanting in truth
and candor was Grecia's testimony. Judge Bernad noted that while A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is "like the court itself, an
Grecia was punctilious when testifying on the hour of his arrival in court instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice" (People ex rel
(9:15 A.M.) on July 16, 1991, and he even remembered that on that day Karlin vs. Culkin, 60 A.L.R. 851, 855). An incorrigible practitioner of "dirty
tricks," like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of "an moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of
instrument to advance the ends of justice." lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
The importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct,
lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession has been stressed whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
by this Court repeatedly. wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe
. . . The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well person to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in
as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do the capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring
honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing of the public. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992,
should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend p. 15.)
to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. WHEREFORE, the Court finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave
3248, September 18, 1992, pp. 13-14.) misconduct, dishonesty, and grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer.
Considering that this is his second offense against the canons of the
. . . . The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall profession, the Court resolved to impose upon him once more the
be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the
condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued Philippines is hereby CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law, in the strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the
part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional SO ORDERED.
duties as a member of the bar, which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. (Melendrez .ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J.
vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662, 676.) RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA
NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE
. . . public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties RABALO, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.
litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested
qualifications and who are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of RESOLUTION
the profession, a s well as being subject for judicial disciplinary control PER CURIAM:
for the protection of court, clients and the public. (Phil. Association of
Free Labor Unions [PAFLU] vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company, 42 This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S.
SCRA 302, 305.) Dasig,[1] an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The
charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the
By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has Attorneys Oath for having used her public office to secure financial
demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.
Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of be chosen by Respondent Dasig to facilitate the application for
the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on correction of name.[3]
December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was
Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as
OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for
attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and
disbarment under Section 27,[2] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
a) Sometime in August 1998 and during the effectivity of which were subsequently dismissed.[4]
Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs
Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing
Service, CHED, she demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher
subparagraph b (22), Section 36[5] of Presidential Decree No. 807, for
of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches, Quezon
her willful failure to pay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and
City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for
Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as evidenced by the dishonored checks
the facilitation of her application for correction of name then
she issued,[6] the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to
pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED...
respondent.[7]
b) Likewise, sometime in July to August 1998 and during the
Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of
effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of
a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo
Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela
Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan
Torre, a student, the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for
Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending
his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED
a result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the
c) Likewise, sometime in September 1998 and during the effectivity respondent and her son, docketed as Criminal Case No. 86052, was
of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36.[8]
Service, CHED, she demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the
Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then
amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her application for
President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned
correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service,
the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED
CHED. . . In addition, Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje to
Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-
register her birth anew with full knowledge of the existence of a
appointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for
prior registration
herself.[9]
d) Likewise, sometime in August to September 1998 and during the
In our resolution of February 3, 1999, we required respondent to file a
effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of
Comment on the charges.[10] A copy of said resolution was sent to the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng,
respondent at her address at Blk. 4, Lot 12, Hobart II Subdivision,
a student, a considerable amount which was subsequently
Novaliches, Quezon City, only to be returned to this Court with the
confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less
notation Unclaimed.[11]
for facilitation of her application for correction of name then
pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED... In addition, the
Respondent even suggested to Ms. Ng to hire a lawyer who shall
On July 5, 1999, we directed that a copy of the resolution of February 3, of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in the future
1999, be served by registered mail to respondent at her office address will be a ground for disbarment of respondent.
in CHED.
On August 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
In a letter dated August 28, 2000, the Postmaster of the Ortigas Center
XV-2002-393, the full text of which reads as follows:
Post Office informed the Court that the said mail matter had been
delivered to, received by, and signed for by one Antonio Molon, an
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
authorized agent of respondent on August 27, 1999.[12]
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
On November 22, 2000, we granted complainants motion to refer the Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
complaint to the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Resolution/Decision as Annex A:; and, finding the recommendation fully
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules;
and considering that respondent unlawfully used her public office in
In its order dated February 6, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar
order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and
Discipline directed respondent to submit her Answer to the Complaint,
reputation of the Commission on Higher Education, Respondent is
failing which she would be considered in default and the case heard ex
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.[13]
parte. Respondent failed to heed said order and on January 8, 2002, the
Commission directed her anew to file her Answer, but again she failed
At the threshold is the query of whether respondent attorney-at-law, as
to comply with the directive. As a result, the Commission ruled that she Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplined by
had waived her right to file her Comment or Answer to the Complaint
this Court for her malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time
and the case was mainly resolved on the basis of the documents
of filing of the complaint, was Chief Education Program Specialist,
submitted and on record. Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards,
In its report and recommendation, dated April 5, 2002, the IBP CHED.
Commission on Bar Discipline stated as follows: Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not
be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge
From the foregoing evidence on record, it can be concluded that
of his duties as a government official.[14] However, if said misconduct as
respondent in violation of her oath as a government official and as a
a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer,
member of the Bar, indeed made unlawful demands or attempted to
then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.[15]
extort money from certain people who had pending
applications/requests before her office in exchange for her promise to In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various occasions,
act favorably on said applications/requests. Clearly, respondent during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort
unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and
the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable
Higher Education. action on their pending applications or requests before her office. The
evidence remains unrefuted, given the respondents failure, despite the
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that respondent be opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on
suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period allowable Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. We find that respondents
misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect moral character required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying
her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to
have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust
sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold
requests awaiting action by her office. the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in
The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every
government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with
lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension,
high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren
or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every
in private practice.
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said
duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule
Responsibility.[16] Respondents demands for sums of money to facilitate 1.03 of Canon 1[20] and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
the processing of pending applications or requests before her office Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross
violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted misconduct as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent
to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code deserves not just the penalty of three years suspension from
of Professional Responsibility. membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as recommended
by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall
A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his
be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross
the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as
those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6[17] of said Code. the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered
Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity DISBARRED.
to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Bar Confidant to be
performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is
spread on the records of the respondent, as well as to the Integrated
subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.
Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office
Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout
or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01[18] of the the country.
Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar
SO ORDERED.
from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful
acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02[19] of the Code
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private
interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or
anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of
his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondents conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good
A.M. No. 3249 November 29, 1989 moved to set aside the order of default, even though notices of the
hearings scheduled were sent to him.
SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant,
vs. In a telegraphic message dated 6 April 1989, complainant informed the
ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent. Commission that she and her husband had already "reconciled". In an
order dated 17 April 1989, the Commission required the parties
RESOLUTION (respondent and complainant) to appear before it for confirmation and
explanation of the telegraphic message and required them to file a
PER CURIAM: formal motion to dismiss the complaint within fifteen (15) days from
notice. Neither party responded and nothing was heard from either
In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 addressed to then party since then.
Mr. Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, complainant Salvacion Delizo
charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with immorality and Complainant having failed to submit her evidence ex parte before the
acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter-complaint was Commission, the IBP Board of Governors submitted to this Court its
forwarded by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, report reprimanding respondent for his acts, admonishing him that any
Commission on Bar Discipline ("Commission"), for investigation, report further acts of immorality in the future will be dealt with more severely,
and recommendation. and ordering him to support his legitimate family as a responsible
parent should.
The Commission, before acting on the complaint, required complainant
to submit a verified complaint within ten (10) days from notice. The findings of the IBP Board of Governors may be summed up as
Complainant complied and submitted to the Commission on 27 follows:
September 1988 a revised and verified version of her long and detailed
complaint against her husband charging him with immorality and acts Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976
unbecoming a member of the Bar. and out of this marriage, two (2) children were born. In 1985, the couple
lived somewhere in Quirino Province. In that year, respondent Cordova
In an Order of the Commission dated 1 December 1988, respondent left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional
was declared in default for failure to file an answer to the complaint Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy,
within fifteen (15) days from notice. The same Order required Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado. Fely G. Holgado was
complainant to submit before the Commission her evidence ex parte, herself married and left her own husband and children to stay with
on 16 December 1988. Upon the telegraphic request of complainant for respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely G. Holgado lived together
the resetting of the 16 December 1988 hearing, the Commission in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent Cordova introducing Fely
scheduled another hearing on 25 January 1989. The hearing scheduled to the public as his wife, and Fely Holgado using the name Fely Cordova.
for 25 January 1989 was rescheduled two (2) more times-first, for 25 Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish
February 1989 and second, for 10 and 11 April 1989. The hearings never a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while at the same time
took place as complainant failed to appear. Respondent Cordova never failing to support his legitimate family.
On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an In Mortel v. Aspiras,1 this Court, following the rule in the United States,
apparent reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate held that "the continued possession ... of a good moral character is a
from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig, Surigao requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the
del Sur. Respondent would, however, frequently come home from law ... and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even though the
beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. " 2 It is
his legitimate family. In February 1987, complainant found, upon important to note that the lack of moral character that we here refer to
returning from a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the
daughter Loraine, that respondent Cordova was no longer living with discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The
her (complainant's) children in their conjugal home; that respondent moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
Cordova was living with another mistress, one Luisita Magallanes, and continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted
had taken his younger daughter Melanie along with him. Respondent moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes
and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complinant, compelling "a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage." 3 In Mortel,
complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by habeas the respondent being already married, wooed and won the heart of a
corpus. The Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her custody of their single, 21-year old teacher who subsequently cohabited with him and
children. bore him a son. Because respondent's conduct in Mortel was
particularly morally repulsive, involving the marrying of his mistress to
Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to live his own son and thereafter cohabiting with the wife of his own son after
with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give the marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred.
support to his legitimate family.
In Royong v. Oblena, 4 the respondent was declared unfit to continue
Finally the Commission received a telegram message apparently from as a member of the bar by reason of his immoral conduct and
complainant, stating that complainant and respondent had been accordingly disbarred. He was found to have engaged in sexual
reconciled with each other. relations with the complainant who consequently bore him a son; and
to have maintained for a number of years an adulterous relationship
After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the with another woman.
IBP Board. We also agree that the most recent reconciliation between
complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2)
excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wife, in
respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting full view of the general public, to the humiliation and detriment of his
upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused
applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show to support. After a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again
that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing
exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the along his young daughter to live with them. Clearly, respondent
bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and
condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community
at large.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the irregularity in the filing of the complaint because while the letter-
practice of law indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court. The complaint was dated 25, June 1956, and received at the Docket Section
Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova of this Court on 2, July 1956, by an employee whose initials are "A.L."4 It
submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he was subscribed and sworn to before a notary public on a later date, 5
has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family July 1956; and the alleged information furnished by Esperanza D.
and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has Almonte that the respondent was cohabiting with another woman who
clung to. had borne him three children is not true because her very informant,
whose true name is Leoncia D. Almonte, executed an affidavit to the
A.C. No. 266 April 27, 1963 effect that the respondent was employed in the Bureau of Lands, not in
the Bureau of Mines, and that the three children referred to by the
PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO, complainant, complainant were the children of Mr. and Mrs. Ruperto Ll. Jose, with
vs. whom the respondent was boarding. Attached to his answer are the
ATTY. JESUS B. TOLEDO, respondent. affidavit of Leoncia D. Almonte and a copy of his answer to a complaint
filed by the complainant with the Director of Lands for abandonment
PADILLA, J.: and immorality. In 9 October 1956, this Court referred the case to the
Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation and on
This is a disbarment proceedings under Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. 11 October 1956 the record of the case was received by the Office of
the Solicitor General. On 19 November 1956, 10 December 1956, 7, 8,
On 9 July 1956 Paz Arellano Toledo filed in this Court a sworn complaint
14, and 15 February 1957, 18 March 1957 and 5 August 1957, the office
in the form of a letter alleging that she is the wife of Jesus B. Toledo, a
of the Solicitor General conducted hearings during which the
member of the Bar;1 that they were married on 27 December 1946 while
complainant presented her evidence both oral and documentary and
he was still a second year student of law; that she supported him and
the respondent, who appeared in his own behalf, cross-examined her
spent for his studies; that after passing the bar examination and
witnesses. The respondent did not present evidence in his behalf but
becoming a full-fledged member of the Bar he abandoned her; that he
reserved the right to present it under the provisions of Section 6, Rule
is at present employed in the Bureau of Mines2 and stationed at
128. After finding that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the
Cagayan de Oro City; and that he is cohabiting with another woman
respondent, on 24 July 1958 the Solicitor General filed a complaint in
who had borne him three children. She prayed that the respondent be
this Court charging the respondent with abandonment of his wife and
disbarred from the practice of law. On 11, July 1956, this Court directed
immorality for cohabiting with another woman by whom he has a child,
the respondent to answer the complaint within ten days from receipt of
and praying that he be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
notice and a copy of the complaint.3The respondent mailed his answer
On 30 July 1958 the Clerk of Court sent to the respondent by mail a
in the form of a letter, which was received in this Court on 4, October
copy of the complaint filed by the Solicitor General and directed him to
1956, averring that the complaint was not in due form because "It does
answer the same within 15 days from receipt thereof, pursuant to
not set out distinctly, clearly and concisely the legal causes for the
Section 5, Rule 128. On 28 August 1958 the respondent filed in this
suspension or disbarment of a member of the Philippine Bar as
Court a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground "that the
provided in the Rules of Court hence his "answer could not be made in
charges contained therein are not based on and supported by the facts
the logical sequence of a formal pleading;" that there seems to be an
and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted by the Office of
the Solicitor General." On 2 September 1958 this Court set the case for The fact that at the close of the hearing conducted by the Solicitor
hearing on 17 September 1958 at 9:30 o'clock in the morning. On 13 General, he made of record his desire to present evidence in his behalf,
September 1958 the respondent filed a motion praying that his motion is not sufficient. The correct manner and proper time for him to make
to dismiss filed on 28 August 1958 be first resolved or, that, should it known his intention is by and in the answer seasonably filed in this
be denied, he be given a period of ten days within which to file an Court.
answer; that upon receipt of his answer the case be returned to the
Solicitor General for reception of his evidence pursuant to Section 6, The complainant testified as follows: On 27 December 1946 she, a
Rule 128; and that the hearing of the case set for 17 September 1958 at dentist by profession, and the respondent, then a second year law
9:30 o'clock in the morning be held in abeyance pending resolution of student, were married civilly in Camiling, Tarlac, by the Justice of the
his motion. At the hearing of the case on 17 September 1958, counsel Peace (Exhibit A). For a period of two weeks after their wedding, they
for the respondent appeared and was given a period of 15 days within lived in the house of her parents at No. 76 General del Pilar street in
which to submit a written memorandum in lieu of oral argument, and Camiling. After two weeks, the respondent went to Manila to resume
the Solicitor General the same period of time from receipt of a copy of his studies at the Far Eastern University,5 and she remained in Camiling
the respondent's memorandum within which to reply. On 22 October to practice her profession. While the respondent was still studying, he
1958, within the extension of time previously granted, the respondent either returned to Camiling once a week or she came to Manila twice a
filed his memorandum and on 17 November 1958, also within the week to visit with each other. Sometimes the respondent stayed with
extension of time previously granted, the Solicitor General, his her in Camiling for a week, and when she came to Manila to buy dental
memorandum in reply. materials she slept with him at his boarding house or at the house on
Economia street where he on lived with his brother Cleto and Aniceto
Section 6, Rule 128, provides: and cousin Felisa Bacera, who cooked their meals for them. They were
in good terms until about three or four months before his graduation.
The evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his investigation On the day of his graduation, he showed her indifference and
may be considered, by the Supreme Court in the final decision of the humiliated and embarrassed her by calling her a "provinciana" and
case, if the respondent had an opportunity to object and cross- telling her that she was a nuisance whenever she came to see him.
examine. If in the respondent's answer no statement is made as to any Nevertheless, being his wife, she continued to see him while he was
intention of introducing additional evidence, the case shall be set down reviewing for the bar examinations. She specifically mentioned that
for hearing, upon the filing of such answer or upon the expiration of the three days before the last examination, she came to see him. A week
time to file the same. (Emphasis supplied) after the bar examinations, she again came to see him. Since then they
became actually separated and she never saw him again until the
The above-quoted rule in no uncertain terms requires the respondent hearing of the case. Through Mrs. Esperanza Almonte, she learned that
in disbarment or suspension proceedings from the practice of law to the respondent was employed in the Bureau of Lands and stationed at
file an answer to the complaint filed by the Solicitor General after Cagayan de Oro City. The respondent never wrote to her and asked her
investigation and, should he desire to present evidence in his behalf, to to follow him at his place of work and she did not care to either.
expressly say so in the answer. Instead of doing what the rule requires,
the respondent filed a motion to dismiss without stating that he Marina Payot gave the following testimony: From 28 February to 3 June
intended to present evidence in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. 1955 she lived and worked as maid, laundress and cook for the
respondent, his family composed of himself, Mrs. Corazon Toledo and "Mama" and ask her for money to buy cigarettes. His friends Nieva and
their child in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. The respondent and Corazon Abad used to address Corazon as "Mrs. Toledo."
Toledo lived as husband and wife, and have a child named Angie who
was less than a year old at the time she lived with them. The couple The respondent admits that he is married to the complainant (p. 14,
slept together in the same room with their daughter Angie and ate their t.s.n.).The fact that he is cohabiting with another woman who had borne
meals together although sometimes Corazon ate alone when the him a child has been established by the testimony of Marina Payot and
respondent was out somewhere. The respondent used to call Corazon Lino Domingo, whose sincerity and truthfulness have been put to a
"Honey" and Corazon used to call the respondent "Jess". Corazon severe and searching test by the investigating Solicitor in the presence
Toledo is not the same person as the complainant. of the respondent who appeared in his own behalf and cross-examined
the witnesses during the investigation. Asked by the investigating
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation Solicitor how she came to testify at the investigation, or whether
of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without anybody taught or coached her on what to testify or whether she
prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not testified because of any promise of reward or consideration, Marina
covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët Payot without hesitation and in a straight forward manner answered
that the complainant, Mr. Domingo and Mr. Reyes (the latter is the
Lino Domingo testified in the following manner: He is employed as complainant's counsel) spoke to her and told her to tell nothing but the
operator-mechanic in the Bureau of Public Highways in Malaybalay, truth about the respondent's affair with his paramour in Malaybalay;
Bukidnon, and has resided there since 1952. He knows the respondent that nobody taught or coached her on what to testify at the
because he headed a survey party that surveyed public lands in investigation; and that she was not promised anything by way of reward
Malaybalay for distribution to the landless. Sometime in March 1955 he or consideration or given money for testifying. Going further in his
went to the respondent's place of residence and office at Moreno street, investigation, the Solicitor asked the witness how she was treated by
where his friend Mr. Nieva, an Ilocano, also resided to apply for a parcel the respondent to find out if she harbors any ill-feeling or grudge
of public land, and about ten times he went to the respondent's place against him and his alleged paramour, which could be a motive for
of residence and office. Among those who lived with the respondent falsely testifying against them, and she answered that she was well
were Mrs. Corazon Toledo, Mr. Nieva, a maid and Mr. Abad (the latter treated by the Toledos; that they considered her a sister; that they paid
only slept at the place whenever he was in town). He knew that Corazon regularly her salary of P15 a month; that they bought her a dress during
Toledo, who is not the same person as Paz Arellano Toledo, was the the town fiesta on May 15; that Corazon never scolded her for she was
wife of the respondent. At the respondent's place of residence and a woman of few words, was kind and did not know how to get angry;
office, he saw a room where the respondent, Corazon and a baby slept and that the reason she left them was because she just felt lonesome
and where man's pajamas and shirts were hung. One day at about 2:00 for her parents. Further testing her credibility, the Solicitor asked how
o'clock in the afternoon, while the respondent and his (the witness') the respondent's paramour looked, and she described her as a woman
friend Mr. Abad were repairing the front mudguard and seats of a of fair complexion. Comparing her (Corazon) to the complainant, she
station wagon behind the respondent's place of residence and office, said that the complainant was more beautiful but Corazon was not ugly
his friend Mr. Abad introduced him to the respondent. He helped Abad and that the latter had a nicer figure, because she was stouter and taller
place the seats of the station wagon in their proper places and while he than the complainant. To find out if it was another and not the
was helping Abad, he heard the respondent address Corazon as respondent who lived with Corazon, the Solicitor asked her if she had
not seen Teodoro Nieva, who lived with the respondent and Corazon in The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with
the same house, kiss or embrace Corazon, and she replied that she had another woman who had borne him a child, has failed to maintain the
not. highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the
Bar.6
Testing the credibility of Lino Domingo, the investigating Solicitor asked
him whether he was related to Claudio Arellano, brother of the THEREFORE, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.
complainant, and Lino readily answered that he is his brother-in-law
and added that he (Lino) is the cousin of the wife of Claudio. Asked if Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes,
he had been asked by the complainant to testify at the hearing, he Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
frankly answered in the affirmative. Questioned as to the description of Bengzon, C.J., took no part.
the respondent's paramour, the witness stated that Corazon is fair in
complexion, five feet tall; that she is taller and fairer in complexion, Footnotes
more beautiful and has a nicer figure than the complainant.
1
He took and passed the bar examinations given by this Court in August
The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence. Marina 1949 (46 Off. Gaz. 4948, 4951) and was admitted to the practice of law
Payot is a simple girl of eighteen years, a mere maid, scant in education, on 16 May 1950 (47 Off. Gaz. 1221, 1226).
and understands little English. She did not even finish the sixth grade
2
of the elementary course. The sharp and incisive questions propounded In a letter dated 17 July 1956, she informed the Court that the
to her by the investigating Solicitor and the lengthy cross-examination respondent is employed in the Bureau of Lands and not in the Bureau
to which she was subjected by the respondent himself would have of Mines.
revealed herself if she was lying. The apparent inconsistencies in her
3
answers may be attributed to her innocence and simple-mindedness According to the respondent, he received notice of the order requiring
and her failure to understand the questions propounded to her. him to answer the complaint on 18 September 1956.
Moreover, she could not be expected to remember the dates asked of 4
her in the same way that a person of more than average intelligence The complainant's letter dated 25 June 1956 was received in the
Docket Section of this Court on 2 July 1956. It was returned to her
would. Add to this the fact that she was subjected to a thorough
because it was not duly sworn to before a person authorized to
examination by three lawyers and her confusion was compounded. Lino
administer oath. On 9 July 1956 the complainant again filed in this Court
Domingo's frank and ready answers to the questions propounded by
the same letter duly sworn to before a notary public.
the Solicitor show sincerity and do not reveal any intention to pervert
the truth. And even if his testimony be discarded, still the testimony of 5
Later on he transferred to the MLQ school of Law where he finished
Marina Payot stands unrebutted.
the law course.
The annexes attached to the respondent's memorandum cannot be 6
Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, 28 December 1956
taken into consideration for they were not properly introduced in
andSarmiento vs. Cui, Adm. Case No. 141, 29 March 1957.
evidence during the investigation.
G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation. The JP
Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, further stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private law
vs. practice. This Order was appealed to the CFI of Laguna, presided by the
SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant. Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, which rendered judgment on December 20,
1961, the pertinent portions of which read:
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant. The present case is one for malicious mischief. There being no
reservation by the offended party of the civil liability, the civil action was
PAREDES, J.: deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The offended
party had, therefore, the right to intervene in the case and be
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged represented by a legal counsel because of her interest in the civil liability
Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the of the accused.
Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said accused was
represented by counsel de officio but later on replaced by counsel de Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a
parte. The complainant in the same case was represented by City justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with
Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with
as private prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretary of the aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the
Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party.
would appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on official It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his
leave of absence, and that he would not receive any payment for his appearance was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of
services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was San Pablo he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the
questioned by the counsel for the accused, invoking the case of Aquino, prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos,
et al. vs. Blanco, et al., Laguna, because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from
L-1532, Nov. 28, 1947, wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney had Alaminos are handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by
been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City the City Attornev of San Pablo. There could be no possible conflict in
Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City Attorney of
in private law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP Court in San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal case. On the other
entertaining the appearance of City Attorney Fule in the case is a hand, as already pointed out, the offended party in this criminal case
violation of the above ruling. On December 17, 1960 the JP issued an had a right to be represented by an agent or a friend to protect her
order sustaining the legality of the appearance of City Attorney Fule. rights in the civil action which was impliedly instituted together with the
criminal action.
Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a
"Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst. City Attorney Ariston
Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, D. Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos,
Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
Laguna as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend profession and that his professional services are available to the public
of the offended party. for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services.
WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace
Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allowing the apprearance of Ariston D. Fule For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had
as private prosecutor is dismissed, without costs. been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of
Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.
The above decision is the subject of the instant proceeding.
CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed
The appeal should be dismissed, for patently being without from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs
merits.1äwphï1.ñët against appellant..
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he Hence, faced with an absolutely uncomprehending and
could in thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to protect and preserve uncompromising mind whose only obsession now is to destroy,
his family. He gave his family sustenance, a comfortable home, love, destroy, and destroy, Your Respondent, with perpetual regret and
education, companionship, and most of all, a good and respected with great sorrow, filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage, Spl.
name. He was always gentle and compassionate to his wife and Proc. No. 566, RTC, Branch III, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. x x x.
children. Even in the most trying times, he remained calm and never
5. Complainant is a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and
inflicted violence on them. His children are all now full-fledged
unbending. But your Respondent never revealed these destructive
professionals, mature, and gainfully employed. x x x
qualities to other people. He preserved the good name and dignity
of his wife. This is in compliance with the marital vow to love, honor
xxxxxxxxx
or obey your spouse, for better or for worse, in sickness and in
health. . . Even in this case, Your Respondent never revealed
Your Respondent subscribes to the sanctity of marriage as a social
anything derogatory to his wife. It is only now that he is constrained
institution.
to reveal all these things to defend himself.
On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable jealousy,
On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a jealous rage,
Complainant has been systematically and unceasingly destroying
Complainant tells everyone, everywhere, that her husband is
the very foundations of their marriage and their family. Their
worthless, good-for-nothing, evil and immoral. She goes to colleges
marriage has become a torture chamber in which Your Respondent
and universities, professional organizations, religious societies, and
has been incessantly BEATEN, BATTERED, BRUTALIZED, TORTURED,
all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil, bad and
immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as professor, I. That all the alleged love letters and envelopes (x x x), picture (x x
as Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband is evil, bad, x) are inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court
and immoral. Is this love?Since when did love become an instrument in Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 107383,
to destroy a mans dearest possession in life - his good name, February 20, 1996. (x x x).
reputation and dignity?
xxxxxxxxx
Because of Complainants virulent disinformation campaign against
II. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges: He never
her husband, employing every unethical and immoral means to
courted Gina Espita in the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao. He
attain his ends, Your Respondent has been irreparably and
never caused the employment of said woman in the DTI. He never
irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. Your Respondent is
had or is having any illicit relationship with her anywhere, at any
not a scandalous man. It is he who has been mercilessly scandalized
time. He never lived with her as husband and wife anywhere at any
and crucified by the Complainant.[21]
time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of its barangays, or in any other
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, place. He never begot a child or children with her.Finally,
respondent presented as evidence the following list of the complaints respondent submits that all the other allegations of Mrs. Narag are
she had filed against him and Gina Espita: false and fabricated, x x x
WHEREFORE, Dominador M. Narag is hereby DISBARRED and his Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let copies of Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published
this Decision be in the personal record of Respondent Narag; and in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5,
furnished to all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.[2]
and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as
SO ORDERED. Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003] Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T.
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services,
Chief, Public Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
T. SIMBILLO, respondent. Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.[3]
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued
[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003]
that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, petitioner, vs. IBP COMMISSION
time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising
ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his
and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, respondents. absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the
ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-
RESOLUTION old prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be
exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a
lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that
it is dignified.[4]
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532- The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
4333/521-2667.[1] investigation, report and recommendation.[5] On June 29, 2002, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information
306,[6] finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of
Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo,
Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1)
who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four
with more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on
to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property
November 11, 2002.[7]
or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
Reconsideration,[8] which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV- turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
2002-606 dated October 19, 2002[9] before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing
as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R.
No. 157053 entitled, Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court
business.[12] It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents . This
is the primary consideration.Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Courts Resolution
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
dated March 4, 2003.
necessarily yields profits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a
In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required to secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public service and to the
manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
resolution on the basis of the pleadings.[10]Complainant filed his lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they
Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting any owe to themselves.[15] The following elements distinguish the legal
additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its early profession from a business:
resolution on the basis of pleadings and records
thereof. [11]
Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and
Memorandum on June 20, 2003. in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much
money;
We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-
606. 2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read: involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
primarily to solicit legal business.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness,
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. clients.[16]
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states: There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained
of. He himself admits that he caused the publication of the
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Courts
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for compassion
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight
months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal services in and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the
the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper.[17] Ten names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the
months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the names of clients regularly represented.
October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.[18] Such acts of respondent are a
deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Courts authority. The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising
magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for
himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly
other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish
or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
magazine, trade journal or society program.Nor may a lawyer permit
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in
his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or
assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four
contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public
to six months from the time of the filing of the case,[19] he in fact
or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and
would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of
modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates,
and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the
names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch
brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
acceptable.[21] Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T.
biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:[22] Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY
the lawyers name and the names of his professional associates; WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law with more severely.
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal country for their information and guidance.
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies SO ORDERED.