LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty.

Abejaron
BAR MATTER 2012 Mandatory Legal Last February 10, 2009, the Supreme Court approved Bar Matter 2012 or the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service governing the mandatory
Aid (Feb 10, 2009) requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether civil, criminal, or administrative) involving indigent and pauper
litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It also mandates other members of the legal profession

to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
All practicing lawyers are required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Clerks of Court and
the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter are designated to coordinate with a lawyer for cases where he may render free legal aid service.
The following lawyers are excluded in the term ―practicing lawyer‖:

1. Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
2. Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
3. Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of

law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by
the nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
4. Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (1) to (3) including those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of
parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
Indigent and pauper litigants are those whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum
wage of an employee and those who not own any real property. They are exempt from payment of docket fees and lawful fees as well as transcripts of
stenographic notes.
A penalty of Php 4,000 shall be imposed on the lawyer who fails to meet the required minimum number of hours of legal aid service each year
required by the IBP without satisfactory explanation. The lawyer shall have a ―not in good standing‖ status and shall not be allowed to appear in court
or any quasi-judicial body as counsel for a period of 3 months. A lawyer who fails to comply with the duties in the Rule for at least 3 consecutive years
shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings and may be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Facts Issues Held

Lawyer & Legal 17. SLU v Dela A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the May a pending case Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed
Profession Cruz, A.C 6010 Saint Louis University- Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) constitutes facts that by the State on those who show that they possess the
Aug 26,2006 against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, determines the qualifications required by law. The purpose of
predicated on the following grounds: existence of gross suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from
misconduct by the the profession those unfit to be entrusted with the
respondent? duties and responsibilities thereby protecting the public
1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse,
and those charged with the administration of justice,
administrative case and labor case.
rather than to punish an attorney.

2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage

Contracting a second marriage despite existence of
despite the existence of his first marriage.
first marriage is a violation of the continous possession
of good moral character as a requirement to the
3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of enjoyment of the privilege of law practice.
his commission.
The Court has characterized a lawyer‘s act of
notarizing documents without the requisite commission
to do so as ―reprehensible, constituting as it does not
only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of
public documents.‖ Notarization of a private document
converts the document into a public one making it
admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
notaries public must observe with the utmost care the

By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 1 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018

LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

Pending case does not constitute facts that determines

the existence of gross misconduct by the respondent
as these are still pending before the proper forums. At
such stages, the presumption of innocence still
prevails in favor of the respondent.
18. Barrientos v Complainant, Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college student, ISSUE: Whether or not
Daarol, AC 1512 and was about 20 years and 7 months old during the time (July- respondent Daarol is
Jan 29, 1993 October 1975) of her relationship with respondent, while grossly immoral.
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol is married, General Manager
Here, respondent, already a married man and about
of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, and 41 years old
41 years old, proposed love and marriage to
at the time of the said relationship.
complainant, then still a 20-year-old minor, knowing
Respondent is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom he
that he did not have the required legal capacity.
has a son; that the marriage ceremony was solemnized on
Respondent then succeeded in having carnal relations
September 24, 1955 at Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte by a
with complainant by deception, made her pregnant,
Catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Anacleto Pellamo, and that said
suggested abortion, breached his promise to marry
respondent had been separated from his wife for about 16 years
her, and then deserted her and the child. Respondent
at the time of his relationship with complainant.
is therefore guilty of deceit and grossly immoral
Respondent had been known by the Barrientos family for quite
conduct.
some time, having been a former student of complainant's father
in 1952 and, a former classmate of complainant's mother at the
Andres Bonifacio College in Dipolog City; that he became By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to
acquainted with complainant's sister, Norma in 1963 and appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has
eventually with her other sisters, Baby and Delia and, her amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his
brother, Boy, as he used to visit Norma at her residence; that he removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar
also befriended complainant and who became a close friend on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
when he invited her, with her parents' consent, to be one of the is in order. Good moral conduct is a
usherettes during the Masonic Convention in Sicayab, Dipolog
City from June 28 to 30, 1973, and he used to fetch her at her
residence in the morning and took her home from the convention condition which precedes admission to the Bar and is
not dispensed with upon admission there. It is a
site after each day's activities; Respondent courted complainant,
and after a week of courtship, complainant accepted continuing qualification to which all lawyers must
respondent's love on July 7, 1973; that in the evening of August possess. Otherwise, a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred.
20, 1973, complainant with her parents' permission was
respondent's partner during the Chamber of Commerce affair at
the Lopez Skyroom in the Dipolog City, and at about 10:00
o'clock that evening, they left the place but before going home,
they went to the airport at Sicayab, Dipolog City and parked the
jeep at the beach, where there were no houses around; that
after the usual preliminaries, they consummated the sexual act
and at about midnight they went home; that after the first sexual
act, respondent used to have joy ride with complainant which
usually ended at the airport where they used to make love twice
or three times a week; that as a result of her intimate relations,
complainant became pregnant;
That after a conference among respondent, complainant and
complainant's parents, it was agreed that complainant would
deliver her child in Manila, where she went with her mother on
October 22, 1973 by boat, arriving in Manila on the 25th and,
stayed with her brother-in-law Ernesto Serrano in Singalong,
Manila; that respondent visited her there on the 26th, 27th and
28th of October 1973, and again in February and March 1974;
that later on complainant decided to deliver the child in Cebu
City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City, and she went there in
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 2 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
April 1974 and her sister took her to the Good Shepherd
Convent at Banawa Hill, Cebu City; that on June 14, 1974, she
delivered a baby girl at the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu
City and, named her "Dureza Barrientos"; that about the last
week of June 1974 she went home to Dipolog City; that during
her stay here in Manila and later in Cebu City, the respondent
defrayed some of her expenses; that she filed an administrative
case against respondent with the National Electrification
Administration; which complaint, however, was dismissed; and
then she instituted the present disbarment proceedings against
respondent.

In view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully

recommend that after hearing, respondent Transfiguracion
Daarol be disbarred as a lawyer.
19. Dahlia S. Respondent, Atty. Balauitan sold to the petitioner a portion of his
Gacias v Atty. 1,242 square meter land located at Tuguegarao for
Alexander P322,000.00. Petitioner upon payment of a total P300,000.00
Bulauiran, AC learned that respondent mortgage the said land compeling the
7280, Nov 16,2006 petitioner to demand to the respondent a copy of the title of the
land purchased. Respondent was not able to produce said title
compeling the petitioner to asked for the return of total money
paid. Respondent was not able to return the money instead their
land purchase agreement did no push thru because the
petitioner failed to pay the total amount. Hence, petitioner filed a
disbarment case against the respondent for dishonesty and
grave misconduct.
Whether or not Rule 7.03 of the Code, provides that a lawyer shall not
respondent acted in engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
violation of the Rule to practice law. Respondent had shown, through his
7.03 of the Code of dealing with the complainant involving a tiny parcel of
professional land, a want of professional honesty. Such misdeed
Responsibility? reflects on the moral stuff which he is made of. His
fitness to continue in the advocacy of law and manage
the legal affairs of others are thus put in serious doubt.
ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found guilty of
gross misconduct and dishonesty.

20. Aileen Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment
Francullo v. Atty. filed by Aileen Ferancullo (petitioner) against Atty. Sancho M.
Sancho M Ferancullo, Jr. (respondent) grounded on his alleged
Ferancullo, AC commission of estafa, bigamy and violation of the lawyers oath.
7214, Nov 30, Complainant narrated how respondent allegedly took advantage
2006 of their attorney-client relationship to extort money from her in
consideration of the out-of- court settlement of her criminal
cases and deceived her into marrying him by concealing his
previous marriage. Complainant averred that respondent would
send her breakfast and flowers. When asked about his personal
circumstances, respondent supposedly told complainant that he
was still single although he had a child out of wedlock.
Complainant also maintained that she saw no apparent
indications suggesting that respondent was married. As
indicative of their romantic relationship, respondent and
complainant allegedly traveled to different places. Complainant
found out that she was pregnant sometime in June 2004.
Respondent likewise denied courting complainant asserting
that the latter had already known since February 2004 that he
[21]
was married. He claimed to be happily married to his legal
wife. He denied living in together with complainant or providing a
residence for complainant. Despite the numerous factual
allegations presented by both parties and the affidavits and
Whether Atty. Sancho Respondent‘s intimate relationship with a woman other
is found guilty of gross than his wife shows his moral indifference to the
immorality with regard opinion of the good and respectable members of the
to engaging in illicit community. It is a time-honored rule that good moral
relationships and character is not only a condition precedent to
abandoning his family? admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law. However, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case
of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and
as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be
decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary
suspension, could accomplish the end desired. Atty.
Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. is found guilty of gross
immorality and is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon
notice with the specific warning that a more severe
penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same
or a similar offense hereafter

By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 3 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018

LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
documents to support them, the IBP made only a general
conclusion that complainant must be motivated by greed in filing
the instant administrative complaint. Thus, the Court reviewed
the records.
21. Joselano On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before
Guevara v . Atty. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Emmanuel Eala Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
AC 7136, Aug 1, for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
2007 lawyer‘s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the
respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages
some which read ―I love you,‖ ―I miss you,‖ or ―Meet you at
Megamall.‖ He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very
late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent‘s house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and
Respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went
uninvited to Irene‘s birthday celebration at which he saw her and
the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal
house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant
later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of
his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent‘s car
and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New
Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001,
Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when
his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with
respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
22. Villatuya v.
Tabalingcos, AC Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for
6622, July 10, Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against respondent, Atty.
2012 Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The
complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP, complainant and his counsel, and the
respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution. The
commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position
papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1,
2005, he averred that he was employed by the respondent as
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 4 of 13
Whether Concubinage Lawyer‘s oath stated that a lawyer should support the
or Adulterous Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not
relationship, be the make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross
reason for the misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted
disbarment of Atty. in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at
Jose Emmanuel Eala. bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under
ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, ― Any husband
who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or,
shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or
shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that
―Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
state. Respondent‘s grossly immoral conduct runs
afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a
lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared
Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and
violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
1. Whether respondent First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in
violated the Code of the fees.
Professional
Responsibility by Supreme Court affirmed the IBP‘s dismissal of the first
nonpayment of fees to charge against respondent, but did not concur with the
complainant; rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true
is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02
2. Whether respondent of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
violated the rule against proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the
unlawful solicitation; fees for legal services rende-red with a person not
and licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng
v. David, Supreme Court held that an agreement
3. Whether respondent between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees
is guilty of gross collected from clients secured by the layperson is null
immoral conduct for and void, and that the lawyer involved may be
having married thrice. disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they
had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to
₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases
they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees
paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was
issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent
being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were
working on together, the latter did not pay the amount due to
him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful
solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms
as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross
immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two
counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his
first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and
asserted that the complainant was not an employee of his law
firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc.,
one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that
complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing
his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that
the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his
contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and
an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality,
respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of
Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value,
since it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent
did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged
bigamous marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to
Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of respondent wherein he
attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts
referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to
the Motion to Admit filed by complainant, claiming that he was
not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed that
criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the
complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both
petitions, he claimed that he had recently discovered that there
were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his
name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar
Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20
November 2007. Respondent moved for the suspension of the
resolution of the administrative case against him, pending
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 5 of 13
complainant‘s allegations in this case had not been
proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against
respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these
allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the
rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point
out the specific provision that was breached. Based on
the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the
Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for
the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or
other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted
in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the
lawyer‘s duties as a member of the bar. This
inconsistency arises when the business is one that can
readily lend itself to the procurement of professional
employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a
cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer‘s behalf; or
is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be
regarded as the practice of law.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by
complainant that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which
purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was
indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for
corporate rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is
mandated to inform the client whether the former is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a
must in those occupations related to the practice of
law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not
clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or
legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not
proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by
respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the
recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating
Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a
disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the
qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue
membership in the bar and not the procedural
technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v.
Garrido:
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was
denied. The Commission resolved that the administrative case
against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report
and Recommendation addressing the specific charges against
respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the nonpayment
of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On
the second charge, the Commission found respondent to have
violated the rule on the solicitation of client for having advertised
his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It
recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for
the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be guilty
of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of respondent, the
Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his
name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar him
was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the
Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their Resolution dated
April 15, 2008 recommending respondent‘s disbarment.
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 6 of 13
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure
— such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or
the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant
— do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's
qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar.
We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice
of law is a component of the administration of justice
and is a matter of public interest because it involves
service to the public. The admission qualifications are
also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications
or the violation of the standards for the practice of law,
like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that
the State may inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant. In this case, complainant
submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that
respondent entered into two marriages while the
latter‘s first marriage was still subsisting. While
respondent denied entering into the second and the
third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions
tantamount to a negative pregnant.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that
respondent entered into marriage twice while his first
marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro
v. Alejandro, 56 we held thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members
of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which
demonstrated a lack of that good moral character
required of them not only as a condition precedent for
their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their
continued membership therein. No distinction has
been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer‘s professional capacity or in
his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide
his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and
a mere citizen at another. He is expected to be
competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he
who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private
affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his
professional dealings nor lead others in doing so.
Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected
as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in
other relations. The administration of justice, in which
the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of
the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and
moral competency on his part so that the courts and
clients may rightly repose confidence in him.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree
of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He
made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of
committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of

the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that his
name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Bar Matter 850 Mandatory RESOLUTION

Continuing Legal ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING
Education LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the
Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by
the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court
hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the following
Revised Rules for proper implementation:
*see full text online*
RA 3019 Sec. 3(d) RA 3019 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency thereof or within one
year after its termination

RA 6713 Sec. 7 (b) RA 6713 Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In

addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees
now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any
public official and employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. -

Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private
enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction
with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1)
year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public
office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the
professional concerned cannot practice his profession in

By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 7 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018

LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
connection with any matter before the office he used to be with,
in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.
Lawyer & the 23. Tiongco v Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the
Courts Aguilar, GR Code of Professional Responsibility. He characterized the
115932, Jan, 25, decision of respondent Judge as ―having been crafted in order to
1995 fool the winning party‖; as a ―hypocritical judgment in plaintiff‘s
favour‖; one with ―perfidious character.‖
Tiongco described respondent as a liar, perjurer or blasphemer
24. Villaflor v. Complainant filed a case for disbarment against respondent
Sarita, AC CBC before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The
No. 471, June 10, Commissioner assigned to investigate the case issued an order
1999 directing respondent to file his answer or comment to
the complaint. The period of time alloted to answer
the complaint lapsed without respondent submitting his
comment. An order was issued requiring the parties to attend the
hearing of the case but the respondent failed to appear. A notice
of hearing was sent to respondent but again he failed to attend
the proceeding. After giving the respondent enough opportunity
to face the charges against him, which the latter did not avail,
the case was submitted for resolution.
25. Marcos v In the case at bar, complainant John Siy Lim charged
Prieto vs. Atty. respondent Atty. Montano with gross misconduct relative to his
Oscar B Corpuz, filing of Civil Case No. C-19928. Complainant alleged that
et.al, AC No. 6517, respondent filed the complaint in the said civil case out of
Dec 6, 2006 malice, indicating that it involves the same parties, the same
causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No.
C-14542. In respondent‘s comment, he denied the allegations
against him. While he admitted filing the civil case stated herein
as a counsel for plaintiff therein, he asserted that it was not filed
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 8 of 13
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
entwined with his vow in the lawyer‘s oath ―to conduct
himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts,‖
his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court ―to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers,‖ and his duty
under the first canon ―to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude, not for the sake of temporary
incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.
2. The use of unnecessary /offensive and
abusive/abrasive and offensive language which
jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes
distrust in judicial administration or tends necessarily
to undermine the confidence of the people in the
integrity of the members of the Court and to degrade
the administration of justice by the Court.
Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and
propriety in making the false and malicious insinuation
against this Court. Such could only come from anger, if
not hate, after he was not given what he wanted.
Anger or hate could only come from one who seems to
be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in
accordance with law and justice whatever he believes
to be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law
and justice whatever does not accord with his views.
4. Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000 plus
warning.
Whether or not failure Yes. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer
to obey notices from the to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which
IBP he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. It
investigators constitutes is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain
an unethical act. the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers. The highest form of respect to the judicial
authority is shown by a lawyer‘s obedience to court
orders and processes.
Whether or not In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum
respondent violated shopping. By his own admission, he was aware that
Canon 12 of Code of Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and
Professional executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case
Responsibility and is No. C-19928). His allegation that he "was not the
liable of forum original counsel of his clients ―and that "when he filed
shopping. the subsequent case for nullity of TCT, his motive was
to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed
were not properly addressed in the prior case for
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case involved the
same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and,
as such, the principle of res judicata did not apply. He further
explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was for
declaratory relief or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case
No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He accepted the case
based on "his professional appreciation that his client had a
good case." In his reply, the complainant stressed that the
respondent was guilty of forum shopping; Civil Case No. C-
19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and "the
lame excuse of the respondent that the present case is an action
in rem while the other case is an action in personam" did not
merit consideration.
26. John Siy Lim In the case at bar, complainant John Siy Lim charged
vs. Atty Carmelito respondent Atty. Montano with gross misconduct relative to his
A. Montano, AC filing of Civil Case No. C-19928. Complainant alleged that
5653, Feb 27, respondent filed the complaint in the said civil case out of
2006 malice, indicating that it involves the same parties, the same
causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No.
C-14542. In respondent‘s comment, he denied the allegations
against him. While he admitted filing the civil case stated herein
as a counsel for plaintiff therein, he asserted that it was not filed
with malicious intent. Moreover, while the new case involved the
same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and,
as such, the principle of res judicata did not apply. He further
explained that the complaint in Civil Case No. C-14542 was for
declaratory relief or reformation of instrument, while Civil Case
No. 19928 was for annulment of title. He accepted the case
based on "his professional appreciation that his client had a
good case." In his reply, the complainant stressed that the
respondent was guilty of forum shopping; Civil Case No. C-
19928 was nothing but a revival of the old complaint; and "the
lame excuse of the respondent that the present case is an action
in rem while the other case is an action in personam" did not
merit consideration.
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 9 of 13
reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant
consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he
should have explained the effect of such final and
executory decision on his clients rights, instead of
encouraging them to file another case involving the
same property and asserting the same rights. The
filing of another action concerning the same subject
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. By his
actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.0225 and
Rule 12.0426 of the Code, as well as a lawyers‘
mandate ―to delay no man for money or
malice."27While we rule that the respondent should be
sanctioned for his actions, we also note that the power
to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be
imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of
the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where
any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.
Thus, respondent lawyer is suspended from practice of
law for six months
Whether or not In this case, it is clear that respondent is guilty of forum
respondent violated shopping. By his own admission, he was aware that
Canon 12 of Code of Civil Case No. C-14542 was already final and
Professional executory when he filed the second case (Civil Case
Responsibility and is No. C-19928). His allegation that he "was not the
liable of forum original counsel of his clients ―and that "when he filed
shopping. the subsequent case for nullity of TCT, his motive was
to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed
were not properly addressed in the prior case for
reformation and quieting of title," deserves scant
consideration. As a responsible member of the bar, he
should have explained the effect of such final and
executory decision on his clients rights, instead of
encouraging them to file another case involving the
same property and asserting the same rights. The
filing of another action concerning the same subject
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. By his
actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.0225 and
Rule 12.0426 of the Code, as well as a lawyers‘
mandate ―to delay no man for money or
malice."27While we rule that the respondent should be
sanctioned for his actions, we also note that the power
to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be
imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
27. Mariveles vs. Mariveles (petitioner) engaged the services of Atty. Mallari
Atty. Odilon C. (respondent) to handle his defense in the RTC where he was
Mallari, AC 3294, charged for violating B.P. Blg. 22. After an adverse decision was
Feb 17, 1993 rendered therein, Mariveles instructed Atty. Mallari to appeal
said the decision to the CA, which the latter did. However, in the
CA, despite numerous extensions of time, totaling 245 days,
Atty. Mallari failed to file the appellant‗s brief, resulting in the
dismissal of the appeal. Mariveles discovered his lawyer‗s
desertion only when he was subpoenaed by the trial court to
appear before it for the execution of the decision which had
become final. Through new counsel, Mariveles filed a petition to
reinstate his appeal, cancel the entry of judgment and accept his
brief, but it was denied. He sought relief in the SC which granted
his petition, ruling that: ―the failure of petitioner‗s former
counsel to file the brief xxx amounted to deliberate abandonment
of his client‗s interest‖ which justified the reinstatement of
Mariveles‗appeal through a new counsel.
28. Re: Admin This administrative case stemmed from the settlement of the
Case No, 44, RTC estate of testator William C. Oga. The late testator divided his
Tagbilaran City estate among his seven children. One of them, Necitas Oga-
Against Atty. Occeña, was named in the Will as executrix (female executor,
Samuel Occena, the one will manage the estate until distributed to the heirs). The
AC 2841, July 3, estate consists of bank deposits, securities (both here and in the
2002 USA) and real estate in Cebu City and in Ohio, U.S.A. The
deceased left no debt. Thus, the settlement of the estate should
have been simple and speedy. Atty. Samuel Occena is the
husband-lawyer of Necistas. However, since the death of the
testator on February 1, 1963, the settlement of his estate has not
yet been terminated owing largely to the dilatory tactics of Atty.
Occeña. From the start of the testate proceedings in 1963, no
less than 13 petitions were filed with the SC and the Court of
Appeals by Atty. Occeña, questioning the interlocutory orders of
the probate court. But most, if not all, were without merit. On top
of that, Atty. Occeña also deliberately refuses to appear in court,
comply with Court orders, and submit answers why he should
not be cited in contempt. Instead, he will petition for restraining
orders or file administrative complaints against the presiding
judge, adding to the much delay of the proceeding. All in all,
Atty. Occeña succeeded to delay the estate proceeding for 38
years.
29. Villahermosa, OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela
Sr. vs. Atty. Isidro who had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian
L. Caracol, AC reform law was enacted, emancipation patents and titles were
7325, Jan 21, issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the
2015 program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainant‘s
spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. The Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision ordering
the cancellation of the emancipation patents and TCTs derived
from OCT No. 433 stating that it was not covered by the agrarian
reform law. This decision was appealed to and affirmed by the
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 10 of 13
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of
the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where
any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.
Thus, respondent lawyer is suspended from practice of
law for six months
WON what Atty. Mallari Yes. He is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of
committed (or what he duty toward his client and is hereby DISBARRED.
failed to do) is a RATIO: Atty. Mallari demonstrated not only appalling
violation of the Code of indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and
Professional his client but also a shameless disregard to his duties
Responsibility. as a lawyer. A lawyer has no business practicing his
profession if in the course of that practice, he will
eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation
of his client and thus disgrace the law profession.
Did Occeña‘s acts Yes. Through his atrocious maneuvers, he
constitute a gross successfully delayed the disposition of the case for the
violation of his oath as last 38 years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not
a lawyer? only to the heirs, but also to Judges Ruiz and Beldia
who heard the case. Atty. Occeña has caused a
mockery of the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury
to the administration of justice through his deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral conduct.
Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to
practice law.
Thus, for his serious administrative offenses,
punishable under Section 27 of Rule 138, Atty. Occeña
deserves the ultimate penalty.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA is
DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY.
Is Atty. Caracol guilty of The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21
deceit, gross provides for a presumption of a lawyer‘s appearance
misconduct and on behalf of his client, hence:
violation of oath under SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. – An attorney
Section 27, Rule 138 of is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any
the Rules of Court? cause in which he appears, and no written power of
attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court
for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of
either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being
shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol,
as ―Add‘l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant,‖ filed a motion for
execution with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for
the full implementation of the decision. Atty. Caracol filed a
Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and
Demolition which he signed as ―Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren
Babela.‖ Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty.
Caracol had no authority to file the motions since he obtained no
authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record.
Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized Atty.
Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had already
been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty. Caracol‘s
real client was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly
bought the same parcel of land. Atty. Caracol insists that Efren
and Ernesto authorized him to appear as ―additional counsel‖.
He said that he had consulted Atty. Aquino who advised him to
go ahead with the filing. Moreover, he stated that he was not
aware that there was a waiver of rights executed in Ernesto
Aguirre‘s favor. In its Report and Recommendation, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and
misconduct.
Lawyer and the 30. Santiago v. An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending
Client Fojas, AC 4103, that they have illegally removed from the union (FEUFA)
Sept 7, 1995 membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. The lower court resolved in
favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to pay, jointly
and severally, Mr. Salvador. The case was then elevated to the
Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in their petition at the
Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly,
or serious neglect of their counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil
complaint on an expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured them that
everything was in order and he had already answered the
complaint. However, the appellants soon discovered that he
never answered it after all because, according to him, he was a
very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his ―mistake‖ in failing to file
an answer for the expulsion case, but he alleges that it was
cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration. However, such
motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his
negligence with the reason that the case was a losing cause
after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was about to appeal the
said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the
complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 11 of 13
appear in a case to produce or prove the authority
under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever
pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who
employed him, and may thereupon make such order
as justice requires. An attorney willfully appearing in
court for a person without being employed, unless by
leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as
an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his
official transactions. (Emphases supplied)
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no
power to act as counsel for a person without being
retained nor may he appear in court without being
employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney
appears on a client‘s behalf without a retainer or the
requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports
to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or
affected by his appearance unless the purported client
ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed authority. If
a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority, he may be
disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of
the court who has misbehaved in his official
transaction.
Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed
away at the time he filed the Motion for Issuance of
Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. As an
honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should
have informed the Court of his client‘s passing and
presented authority that he was retained by the client‘s
successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have
been substituted.
Atty. Caracol was found guilty of deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of oath under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, he was
suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Whether the Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the
respondent committed Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees
culpable negligence, as to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes
would warrant fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
disciplinary action, in the trust and confidence reposed in him. This means
failing to file for the that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
complainants an remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of
answer the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every
such remedy or defense. In his motion for
reconsideration of the default order, the respondent
explained his non-filing of the required answer by
impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large
volume and pressure of legal work, while in his
Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake
and excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to
question the denial order of the trial court. Whether it
be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that
the respondent did not comply with his duty to file an
answer.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
terminated by complainant. Complainants then filed for a
disbarment case.
31. Dalisay v. The case stemmed from a letter-complaint by Valerina Dalisay
Mauricio, AC against Atty. Melanio Muauricio for demanding and receiving
5655, April 22, exorbitant attorney‘s fees but did not take any action on her
2005 case. Complainant further alleged that notwithstanding her
payments, respondent never rendered any legal service for her
in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a result, she terminated their
attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her
money and documents. However, he refused to do so.
Respondent on his part defended that what was collected as
attorney‘s fees is for the legal services by way of legal advice
and opinions that the respondent rendered to her and her family.
Thus, he had every right to collect such.
32. Villaflores vs. - Complaint for disbarment filed by Virginia Villaflores
Limos, AC 7504, against Atty. Sinamar Limos because of Gross
Nov 23, 2007 Negliegence and Dereliction of Duty
- Atty. Limos was the counsel of Villaflores in another
case filed before the RTC where the latter is a
defenadant. Before this, Atty. Limos‘ handled a case
for Villaflores‘ son.
- In the original case where Villaflores was a defendant,
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 12 of 13
excuse for the respondent‘s inability to exercise due
diligence in the performance of his duty to file an
answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free. Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires him
to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with
diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof
which provides: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.‖
Atty. Fojas‘s negligence is not excused by his claim
that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a ―losing
cause‖. The Supreme Court held that he should have
seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule
15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when
advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the
client‘s case, neither overstating nor understanding the
prospects of the case.
REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED
Whether or not Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
respondent is guilty Responsibility, the body of rules governing the conduct
of malpractice and of every member of the Bar in this jurisdiction,
gross misconduct for provides: CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY
violating Canons 17, TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
18, Rule 18.03 and 20 MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
of the Code of REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL
Professional SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
Responsibility? DILIGENCE. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states:A
LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER
ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH SHALL RENDER HIM
LIABLE. Also, respondent‘s Attorney‘s Oath declares
that respondent shall impose upon himself the sacred
duty, among others, that he will not delay any man for
money or malice, and will conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity to courts as well as to his client
Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period for six (6) months effective from notice,
and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction in
the future will be dealt with more severely.
Whether the Yes.
respondent committed
culpable negligence in - The relation of attorney and client begins
handling complainant‘s from the time an attorney is retained. To
case as would warrant establish the professional relation, it is
disciplinary action. sufficient that the advice and assistance of
an attorney are sought and received in any
manner pertinent to his profession.
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
the RTC rendered a judgment unfavorable to
Villaflores. She wanted to appeal. She initially sought
PAO‘s (Public Attorney‘s Office) services but decided
to solicit the services of Atty. Limos.
- Villaflores initially paid her 10,000 (on Sept 8, 2004) ,
then another 10,000 (on Sept 9, 2004), then another
2,000 for miscellaneous expenses (on Sept 21, 2004).
Atty. Limos was paid a total of 22,000 duly receipted
and acknowledged by the latter.
- Subsequent to the payments, on Sept 21, 2004, an
Employment Contract was signed by Atty. Limos and
VIllaflores to formally engage the lawyer‘s professional
services.
- However, Villaflores‘ appeal (the original case) was
dismissed because Atty. Limos was not able to file an
appellant‘s brief within the required reglementary
period.
- After knowledge of this, there have been many
unsuccessful attempts by Villaflores to see Atty.
Limos, the lawyer refusing to talk to Villaflores.
Villaflores filed a complaint with the IBP, the Comission of Bar
disciplined that Atty. Limos should be declared guilty of gross
negligence in failing to file the required appellant‘s brief and
should be suspended for 1 year and must return the 22,000 paid
by Villaflores. The IBP Board of Governers adopted this
resolition and modified it, suspending Atty. Limos for 3 months
instead.
33. In Re Pelaez,
Mar 3, 1923
34. Orbe vs. In November 1996, Attorney Henry Adaza went to Priscilla Orbe
Adaza, AC 5252, to borrow P60k. Orbe loaned Adaza the said amount. As
May 29, 2004 security, Adaza issued Orbe two checks to cover the loan plus
interest. The checks however bounced (the second check was
even postdated by Adaza to bear the date January 24, 1996-
many months before November 1996 when the loan was made).
Subsequently, because of Adaza‘s failure to pay despite notices
and demand from Orbe, the latter filed a complaint for grave
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 13 of 13
- THUS, as early as Sept 8 (first payment was
made), respondent was already considered
as counsel and not merely on Sept 21 when
the Employment Contract was signed. The
acceptance of payment and the records of
the case bars the attorney from disclaiming
the existence of the attorney-client
relationship.
- No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client,
but once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle
that an attorney who undertakes an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes
final and executory.
- Respondent‘s defense that complainant
failed to inform her of the exact date when to
reckon the 45 days within which to file the
appellant‘s brief does not inspire belief or, at
the very least, justify such failure. If
anything, it only shows respondent‘s cavalier
attitude towards her client‘s cause.
- CANOY vs ORTIZ, Court ruled
that failure to file a position
paper by the counsel is to be
considered a violation of Rule
18.03. Same is true in this case.
It was the lawyer‘s duty to inform
the client of the status of the
case.
- Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers states: A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
- Failure of respondent to file the appellant‘s
brief for complainant within the reglementary
period constitutes gross negligence in
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Whether or not Adaza Yes. Adaza‘s issuance of worthless checks and his
should be suspended. contumacious refusal to comply with his just obligation
for nearly eight years (from SC‘s date of decision
[2004]) is appalling. The Supreme Court also
elucidated on the following:
A member of the bar may be so removed or
suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit,
malpractice, or misconduct in office. The word
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
misconduct against Adaza. Orbe alleged that Adaza is unfit to be
a member of the bar. Eventually, the case was referred to the
respective Integrated Bar of Philippines chapter. Despite notices,
Adaza failed to appear in any of the proceedings. The IBP
chapter then recommended Adaza‘s suspension for one year.
35. Maria Divina Sometime in January 2004, Maria Villanueva engaged the
Cruz- Villanueva services of respondent Atty. Rivera to prepare the documents,
vs. Atty. Carlos P. and to pay all the necessary expenses, relating to the sale of
Rivera, et al. AC complainants property to Samson B. Bautista (Bautista). As
1123, Nov 20, shown by an acknowledgment receipt, Rivera received P80,000
2006 from complainant to cover expenses payable to the BIR, the
Register of Deeds, the City Treasurers Office, and others.
Reconveyance in January 2004.
that the property had been transferred in Bautista‘s name based
on a Deed of Reconveyance executed by complainant.
Bautista‘s widow also informed Villanueva that final payment for
the property would be withheld pending payment of all the
necessary taxes. The BIR also directed Villanueva to explain
why no tax evasion charges should be filed against her for non-
payment of taxes on the transfer.
on the property and to file cases for estafa and violation of BP.
22 against Bautista‘s widow. Respondent Rivera requested and
received P13,000 as acceptance fee and representation
expenses.
respondent Rivera to clarify the issue on the non-payment of
taxes and the alleged Deed of Reconveyance. She also directed
Atty. Rivera to pay immediately the necessary taxes to the BIR.
notarial commission for the years 2003 and 2004.
ndent Simeon, Jr., Regional
Director, Registry of Deeds, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, of
conspiracy with respondent Rivera in registering the property
under Bautistas name based on the Deed of Reconveyance
without payment of the proper taxes. Complainant alleged that
respondent Simeon, Jr. allowed the registration despite
knowledge that there was a prior Deed of Sale and that
respondent Simeon, Jr. received part of the P80,000 to facilitate
the transfer.
cted
respondents to answer the complaint. However, Rivera did not
file any answer.
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 14 of 13
―conduct‖ used in the rules is not limited to conduct
exhibited in connection with the performance of the
lawyer‘s professional duties but it also refers to any
misconduct, although not connected with his
professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer upon him. The grounds
expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of
Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover
any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in
his professional or private capacity. Such misdeed
puts his moral fiber, as well as his fitness to continue in
the advocacy of law, in serious doubt.
WON the respondent Yes
Rivera liable for
violation of the lawyers Evidence (w/ regard to Simeon)
oath and the Code of ▪ In administrative proceedings, the complainant has
Professional the burden of proving with substantial evidence the
Responsibility? allegations in the complaint. Aside from complainant‘s
bare allegations, complainant did not present any
evidence to prove that respondent Simeon, Jr.
conspired with respondent Rivera.
Public (w/ regard to Rivera)
▪ A member of the Bar who notarizes a document
when he has no authorization or commission to do so
may be subjected to disciplinary action. Notarization is
not an empty act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are authorized may
act as notaries public.
▪ Notaries public who notarize documents without the
requisite commission are penalized with revocation of
their notarial commission and are barred from being
commissioned as notary public.
e Money
He Received
▪ The Code mandates that every lawyer shall hold in
trust all funds of his client that may come into his
possession. The Code further states that a lawyer
shall account for all money received from the client.
• received P80,000 from
Villanueva for expenses to the BIR, the Register of
Deeds, the City Treasurers Office and other related
purposes. He also received P13,000 from complainant
as acceptance fee and representation expenses for
the filing of the adverse claim and criminal charges
against Bautista‘s widow. However, respondent Rivera
did not pay the taxes to the BIR and did not file an
adverse claim. Hence, respondent Rivera should have
promptly accounted for and returned the money to
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. On the
registration in Bautistas name without payment of the required
taxes, respondent Simeon, Jr. claimed that he relied on the
genuineness and authenticity of the documents presented by
Atty. Rivera. Respondent Simeon, Jr. denied that he received
money from respondent Rivera to facilitate the transfer.
In IBP
• Furthermore, Rivera is ORDERED TO ACCOUNT to
conference in March 2005. Only complainant and respondent
Simeon, Jr. appeared. The hearing was cancelled and reset. But
then only complainant appeared. Despite receipt of notices of
hearing, respondent Rivera did not attend any of the hearings.
misconduct
Atty. Simeon, Jr, charge against him was dismissed for
lack of merit.
36. Estela Petitioner Estela Anastacio-Briones engaged the services of
Anastacio-Briones respondent to file three civil cases involving a parcel of land
vs. Atty. Alfredo located in Antipolo City. The complainant said that she showed
Zapanta, AC 6266, respondent a copy of "Discharge and Appearance of Counsels
Nov 16, 2006 with Ex-parte Motion to Cancel the October 25, 2002 Hearing"
she intended to file. Prior to the hearing, she said that she
informed respondent of her joint venture agreement with a real
estate developer who offered the services of its own counsel.
Complainant added that respondent requested her not to file it
and he would submit a withdrawal of appearance instead.
Complainant also informed respondent that she could not attend
the hearing on January 6, 2003 because of other commitments.
Respondent allegedly assured her that he would be present in
the hearing.
On the said day, both the complainant and the respondent failed
to appear in the hearing—resulting to the declaration of the trial
court that they have waived their right to present further
witnesses and directed them to file their formal offer of evidence
within ten days from notice.
Instead of filing a formal offer of evidence, the respondent filed a
withdrawal of appearance. But five days later, ―the trial court
dismissed the case with prejudice.‖
On May 5, 2003, complainant learned that the cases were
dismissed and that respondent did not attend the January 6,
2003 hearing and did not file a formal offer of evidence.
Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for
abandoning her case and withdrawing his appearance as
counsel without her knowledge.
The respondent denied promising complainant that he would
attend the January 6, 2003 hearing. According to him,
complainant informed his secretary that her new lawyer would
attend. Respondent claimed further that complainant‗s new
lawyer should be faulted for belatedly filing an entry of
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 15 of 13
complainant.
•
WHEREFORE, Rivera is GUILTY of violation of
the lawyers oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 16, and Rule
16.01. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year and is BARRED from being
commissioned as notary public for one year.
complainant, within 20 days from notice of this
decision, for the P80,000 and the P13,000.
We DISMISS the complaint against respondent Atty.
Alexander P. Simeon, Jr.
Is there any liability Yes. In the Report and Recommendation of IBP, it said
arising from the acts of that the respondent is found liable for negligence in the
the respondent? performance of his duties as a counsel, and for
ciolating CPR.
The Supreme Court said that ―until a lawyer‗s
withdrawal shall have been approved, he remains
counsel of record and is expected by his client as well
as by the court to do what the interests of his client
require. He must still appear on the date of hearing for
the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally
until there is a withdrawal of his appearance on
record.‖ ―Certainly not to be overlooked is the duty of
an attorney to inform his client of the developments of
the case. We note that it was only on May 5, 2003 that
complainant learned that she defaulted in the case. As
a lawyer mindful of the interest of his client,
respondent should have informed the complainant of
the court‗s order addressed to him, especially if he
considered himself discharged in order for complainant
and her new counsel to be guided accordingly.‖
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
appearance and a motion for reconsideration. Respondent also
claimed that he was merely being used as a scapegoat for
complainant‗s own negligence in pursuing the cases.
37. Abraham Ong
vs. Ciba Geigy
(Phils.) Inc., GR
149200, July 14,
2006
38. Mortera vs. From the execution of a judgment in a civil action for rescission Whether or not it is No. Respondent‘s responsibility to the complainants is
Atty. Pagatpatan, of contracts, the complainants, then the plaintiffs, secured proper for an attorney unequivocally stated in Canons 15 and 16 of the Code
AC 4562, June 15, judgment under which the defendant in that case was to pay to appropriate for of Professional Responsibility. The four rules
2005 them P155,000 for the property. The plaintiff‘s counsel, himself the governing this situation where: he owed candor to his
Atty. Pagatpatan, agreed with Aguilar (defendant in civil action), judgment sum due to clients; he was bound to account for whatever money
toacceptP150,000 as partial payment of the judgment sum, his clients considering he received for and from them; as a lawyer, he was
issuing a receipt for the amount. He then deposited the money in the latter‘s obligated to keep his own money separate from that of
his personal bank account without the knowledge of nonpayment of fees for his clients; and, although he was entitled to a lien over
complainants. Until now, respondent adamantly refuses to services previously the funds in order to satisfy his lawful fees, he was
surrender the money to complainants, despite the successive rendered by the former also bound to give prompt notice to his clients of such
Orders of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Hence, this present liens and to deliver the funds to them upon demand or
case for disbarment. Respondent admits his secret agreement when due. Respondent violated each and every one of
with and receipt of the money from Aguilar, saying that his these rules. Respondent is suspended from the
clients would not have paid him his fees had he not done what practice of law for two years
he did. Respondent narrated his years of service as counsel for
the complainants and their mother. He alleged the amounts they
owed him although he presented no evidence of any agreement
between him and the complainants for the exact amount of his
compensation.

39. Trinidad, et al. The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific Whether or not the The respondent‘s action is clearly proscribed by Rule
vs. Atty. Angelito performance filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory respondent should be 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
Villarin, AC 9310, Board (HLURB) by the buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla administratively states that:
Feb. 27, 2013 Subdivision against the subdivision's owner and developer- sanctioned for sending
Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig. The HLURB the demand letters? Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and
ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
Sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants. client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
The Decision did not show any directive for the buyers to vacate threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
the property. Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal obtain an improper advantage in any case or
the Decision, thus making it final and executory. Thereafter, the proceeding.
HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. It was at this point that
respondent Villarin entered his special appearance to represent The rule requires that a lawyer shall employ only fair
Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an Omnibus Motion to set and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Lawyers
aside the Decision and to quash the Writ of Execution for being must not present and offer in evidence any document
null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the that they know is false like in the case at bar.
improper service of summons on his client. This motion was not
acted upon by the HLURB. Respondent sent demand letters to
herein complainants.
In all of these letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate
the property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days
from receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary action
against them. True enough, Purence Realty, as represented by
respondent, filed a Complaint for forcible entry before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Trinidad, Lander, Casubuan
and Mendoza.
Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case

By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 16 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018

LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
against respondent. A month after, Alojado, Villamin and
Tolentino filed a disbarment case against respondent. As found
by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and affirmed by its
Board of Governors, complainants asserted in their respective
verified Complaints that the demand letters sent by Villarin had
been issued with malice and intent to harass them. They insisted
that the letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering
his client to permit the buyers to pay the balance of the purchase
price of the subdivision lots.
40. Spouses This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified
Concepcion vs. Complaint filed by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion
Atty. Elmer A. dela (Henry) and Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively
Rosa, AC 10681, complainants) against respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa
Feb. 3, 2015 (respondent), charging him with gross misconduct for violating,
among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). Complainants alleged that from 1997 until
August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and
counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their
cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among
others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards
the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to materialize.
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their
failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called
Henry to borrow money. The checks were personally encashed
by respondent. Demanded the return of payment but failed to do
so. Respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 from
complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor.18 He also
claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect from
Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose.
In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that
respondent‘s actions degraded the integrity of the legal
profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16
of the CPR. Respondent‘s failure to appear during the
mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the
IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be
ordered to return the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with
stipulated interest.
By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 17 of 13
Whether respondent The Court concurs with the IBP‘s findings except as to
should be held its recommended penalty and its directive to return the
administratively liable amount of P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to
for violating the CPR. complainants. the complainants and incurring the
same obligation.
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is
prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless
the client‘s interests are fully protected:
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his clients that may come into his
possession.
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client‘s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.‖
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the
relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any
natural tendency goes, this ―trust and confidence‖ is
prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money
by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the
lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his
client.
The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by
the lawyer‘s ability to use all the legal manoeuvrings to
renege on his obligation. A lawyer‘s act of asking a
client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very
unethical. It comes within those acts considered as
abuse of client‘s confidence. The canon presumes that
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer‘s ability to
use all the legal manoeuvrings to renege on her
obligation.
As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money
from complainants who were his clients and whose
interests, by the lack of any security on the loan, were
not fully protected. Owing to their trust and confidence
in respondent, complainants relied solely on the
former‘s word that he will return the money plus
interest within five (5) days.
However, respondent abused the same and reneged
on his obligation, giving his previous clients the
runaround up to this day. Accordingly, there is no
quibble that respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the
I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018
LEGAL PROFESSION – Atty. Abejaron
CPR.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is
found guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective
upon finality of this Decision, with a stern warning that
a commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.

By: Ms. Deiparine & A. de Leon 18 of 13 I-Estrellado as of 10.22.2018