CASE TITLE ISSUE HOLDING

DELOS REYES v AZNAR Whether Atty. Aznar is guilty of gross
A.M. No. 1334 (November 28, 1989) immoral misconduct that would warrant
A second year medical student of suspension of removal from the bar?
Southwestern University alleged in her
verified complaint against Atty. Jose
Aznar, the chairman of the said university,
that he had carnal knowledge of her for
several times under the threat that she
would flunk Pathology subject if she
would not submit to his desires. Moreover,
when she became pregnant, Atty. Aznar
made her undergo forced abortion. In his
response, he denied any personal
knowledge of the complainant as well as
all the allegations against him. After due
investigation, the Solicitor General found
Atty. Aznar guilty of guilty of gross
immoral conduct. He then further
recommends a suspension from the
practice of law for a period of not less than
three (3) years.
Yes, he was guilty gross immoral
misconduct that would warrant his
disbarment. Under Section 27, Rule 138,
"(a) member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required
to take before admission to practice. It was
highly immoral of respondent, a married
man with children, to have taken
advantage of his position as chairman of
the college of medicine in asking
complainant, a student in said college, to
go with him to Manila where he had carnal
knowledge of her under the threat that she
would flunk in all her subjects in case she
refused. Hence, Atty. Aznar should be
disbarred.

ARCIGA VS MANIWANG Whether Maniwang should be disbarred No, Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga
A.M. No. 3249 (November 29, 1989) and be held liable for gross immoral was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to
In 1970, Arciga was a medical technology conduct? warrant disbarment. But the Supreme
student and Maniwang was a law student. Court did say that it is difficult to state
The two acquainted and had a sexual with precision and to fix an inflexible
relationship which resulted to Arciga standard as to what is “grossly immoral
being pregnant and immediately arranged conduct” or to specify the moral
their marriage. When Maniwang passed delinquency and obliquity which render a
the bar exams, he stopped communicating lawyer unworthy of continuing as a
with Arciga and then found out that
Maniwang married another woman.
Subsequently, she filed disbarment case
against Maniwang grounded on gross
immoral conduct.
Maniwang admitted that he is the father of
Arciga’s child and that he did promise to
marry Arciga many times but broke those
promises because apparently Arciga had
an illegitimate child even before her son
with Maniwang was born.
Sabayle v Tandayag
A.C. No. 140-J. (March 8, 1988)
A case of disbarment was filed against
Atty. Tandayag on the grounds of
serious dishonesty and professional
misconduct. The respondent lawyer
knowingly participated in a false and
simulated transaction not only by
notarizing a spurious Deed of Sale, but
also – and even worse – sharing in the
profits of the specious transaction by
acquiring half of the property subject of
the Deed of Sale.
Whether Atty. Tandayag is guilty of
serious dishonesty and professional
misconduct?
member of the bar. The rule implies that
what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants
disbarment. Immoral conduct has been
defined as “that conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the
community”. The complaint for
disbarment against the respondent is
hereby dismissed
Yes. A lawyer who knowingly takes part
in a false and simulated transaction not
only by notarizing a simulated Deed of
Sale but also by sharing in the profits
flowing from defrauding of the victim
through such transaction by acquiring half
of the property sought to be transferred by
the false transaction, is guilty of serious
dishonesty and professional misconduct.
not only did respondent know of the
fictitious sale between complainant and
Mr. Teopisto Salcedo, so that the latter
did not have any right to transfer to him a
portion of the land, respondent also
maliciously participated in the Deed of
Sale purportedly transferring to him one-
half of the property for sufficient
consideration. Such conduct, constitutes
willful disregard of his solemn duty as an
 attorney to act at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor.

Investment Management Services Corp vs

Roxas
A.C. No. 1417. April 17, 1996

The administrative proceedings against

Atty. Leodegario V. Roxas started when a
petition for "disbarment or suspension"
was filed, on 03 January of that year, by
the Investment and Management Services
Corporation. The petition averred that the
complainant managed three corporations
in the Philippines, to wit: Worldwide
Paper Mills, Inc., Prime Trading
Corporation and Luzon Leather
Industries, Inc. Respondent lawyer, while
he was still petitioner's Administrative
and Legal Officer, allegedly
"misappropriated or appropriated for his
own use and benefit certain sums of
money or checks which he received in
trust . . . from the Prime Trading
Corporation and Luzon Leather
Industries, Inc. amounting to P2,623.80,
from the debtors of Luzon Leather
Industries, Inc. amounting to P3,444.00,
and from a number of employees of the
Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc. amounting
to P1,749.50 or a (grand) total of
P7,817.30 petitioner, respondent issued
bouncing checks to pay for personal
obligations.
Narido vs Linsangan
A.M. No. 944 July 25, 1974
Two administrative cases wherein
respondents Jaime S. Linsangan and
Rufino B. Risma, who frepresented
adverse parties in a workmen's
compensation case, did mutually hurl
accusation at each other. The charge
against respondent Linsangan filed by a
certain Flora Naridois that he violated the
attorney's oath by submitting a perjured
statement. When required to answer, not
only did he deny the complaint but he
would also hold respondent Risma
accountable for having instigated his
client, the complainant, Flora Narido, to
file a false and malicious complaint
resulting in what respondent Linsangan
called "embarrassment, humiliation and
defamation" of a brother in a profession
PEOPLE v SESBRENO
G.R. No. L-62449 July 16, 1984
Atty sesbreno has been filed with a case
of libel based on alleged defamatory
statement found in a pleading that he
made. This pleading is entitled
"PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO
Whether Atty. Jaime Linsangan should be
disbarred for violating the Canon on
Professional Ethics?
Whether atty sesbreno's wordings in the
pleading employed language that is
unbecoming of a member of the Bar and
therefore would result to a violation the
CPR?
No, the complaint against respondent
Jaime S. Linsangan should dismissed for
lack of merit. Respondent Rufino B.
Risma is exculpated from the charge of
having instigated the filing of an
unfounded suit. He is, however,
admonished to exercise greater care in
ascertaining how much under our law he
could recover by way of attorney's
contract entered into between him and his
client as to his being entitled to fifteen per
cent of the award granted her in a
workmen's compensation suit is declared
to be of no force and effect, the penalty
imposed being that of admonition merely
only because he had made no effort to
collect on the same and had even
advanced expenses for a poor client.
No. However, although it is
understandable, if not justifiable, that, at
times, zeal in the defense of one's clien
tmay be carried to the point of undue
skepticism and doubts as to the motives
of opposing counsel, the spectacle
presented by two members of the bar
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION DATED
MARCH 9TH" dated March 11, 1980
filed in Civil Case No. R-18181 entitled
"HEIRS OF ROBERTO CENIZA, ET
AL. V. DANIELA CENIZA UROT" now
pending litigation before Branch IV of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, 14th
Judicial District
They alleged libelous statements
imputing that Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza is
an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted,
like Judas, a liar and irresponsible
childish prankster.
Requested for squashal of information
because accordimg to him it is protected
by doctrine of absolute privilge
communication
engaged in bickering and recrimination is
far from edifying Mutual bickerings and
recriminations between brother attorneys
detract from the dignity of the legal
profession and will not receive any
sympathy from this Court
Whatever may be the ill-feeling existing
between clients, it should not be allowed
to influence counsel in their conduct and
demeanor toward each other or toward
suitors in the case. All personalities
between counsel should be scrupulously
avoided.
In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language should
likewise be dignified Choice of language
is a important requirement in the
preparation of pleadings Appropriately,
in the assertion of their client's rights,
lawyers - even those gifted with superior
intellect - are enjoined to rein up their
tempers. Greater care and circumspection
must be exercised in the preparation of
their pleadings and to refrain from using
abrasive and offensive language. A
becoming modesty is a desirable trait also
of practising attorneys
Atty Sesbreno is reprimanded and
admonished to refrain from employing

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE
LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE
ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZAS
petitioners, vs. BINALBAGAN
ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY,
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNING
respondents
G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971
The herein petitioner Enrique Entila and
Victoriano Tenazas ere complainant in
the case no. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled,
“PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela
Sugar Co., et al.” which the Court of
Industrial Relation rendered a decision in
favor of the complainant,ordering
reinstatement and backwages. Cipriano
Cid and Associates and Atty. Atanacio
Pacis filed a notice of attorney’s lien
equivalent to 30% of the total backwages.
Complainants Entila and Tenazas filed a
manifestation indicating their non-
objection to an award of attorney’s fees
for 25% of their bacwages, and on the
same day, Quentin Muning filed a
Petition for the Award of Services
Whether or not Quentin Muning, a non
lawyer, can recover attorney’s fees?
language unbecoming of a member of the
Bar and to extend
courtesy and respect to his brothers in the
profession with a warning that any future
infraction of a nature
similar to that found in this case shall be
dealt with more severely
No, that an agreement providing for the
division of attorney's fees, whereby a
non-lawyer union president is allowed to
share in said fees with lawyers, is
condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics
and is immoral and cannot be justified.
An award by a court of attorney's fees is
no less immoral in the absence of a
contract, as in the present case.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal
profession should not be violated; that
acting as an attorney without authority
constitutes contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both, and the law will not assist a person
to reap the fruits or benefit of an unlawful
act or an act done in violation of law; and
that if fees were to be allowed to non-
lawyers, it would leave the public in
hopeless confusion as to whom to consult
in case of necessity and also leave the bar
in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact
that non-lawyers are not amenable to
disciplinary measures.
Rendered equivalent to 20% of the
backwages. Muning petition was opposed
by the herein petitioner on the ground that
the former is not a lawyer.
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning,
who is not a lawyer according to the
order, is sought to be voided in the
present petition

HALILI VS CIR
The Union, through Atty. Benjamin C.
Pineda, filed an urgent motion with the
Ministry of Labor and Employment
(MOLE) requesting for authority to sell
and dispose of the property. Union
President Amado Lopez, in a letter,
informed J.C. Espinas and Associates that
the general membership of the said Union
had authorized a 20% contingent fee for
the law firm based on whatever amount
would be awarded the Union.
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, (the original
counsel) established the award of 897
workers' claim. When Atty. Pineda
appeared for the Union in these cases,
The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any conduct on
his part showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust
Whether Whether or not Atty. Pineda deserves disciplinary
which characterize the attorney and client relations, and the
action for violating the Canons of Professional Ethics?
practice of law before the courts, or showing such a lack of
personal honesty or of good moral character as to render him
unworthy of public confidence.
In the case, the expeditious manner by which Arbiter
Valenzuela granted Atty. Pineda's motion for such authority to
sell the property make the entire transaction dubious and
irregular.
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion praying for
authority to sell was by itself an admission on his part that he
did not possess the authority to sell the property. He could not
and did not even wait for valid authority but instead previously
obtained the same from the labor arbiter whom he knew was
not empowered to so authorize.
The 45% attorney's lien on the award of those union members
who were no longer working and the 30% lien on the benefits
of those who were still working as provided for in the alleged
retainer's contract are also very exorbitant and unconscionable.

still an associate of the law firm, his

Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for
appearance carried the firm name B.C. which he is sentenced to imprisonment and directed to show
Pineda and Associates," giving the cause why he should not be disbarred.

impression that he was the principal

lawyer in these cases. A prospective
buyer, the Manila Memorial Park
Cemetery, Inc. objected in view of PD
1529 which requires no less than an order
from a court of competent jurisdiction as
authority to sell property in trust.

Atty. Pineda, without authority from the

Supreme Court but relying on the earlier
authority given him by the Ministry of
Labor, filed another urgent motion,
praying that the Union be authorized to
sell the lot. The sale was finally
consummated, resulting in the execution
of an escrow agreement.
TAN TEK BENG VS DAVID whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Yes, Respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.
Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving
Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh We hold that the said agreement is void because it was
In said agreement lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half
Day Adventists), one-half of the attorney's fees received by tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting
of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent
David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng. cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
but he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients
paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did
of duty commsitted by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and
not last. There were mutual accusations of doublecross. No civil
technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828,
suit wad filed by Tan.
amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that
composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek Beng as assistant
the practice of law is a profession, not a business. "The lawyer
manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier.
may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others
When Jacinto became ill and the costs of office maintenance
for to do so would be unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In
mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest
re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme vs. Bualan, 58
some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan
Phil. 422; Arce vs. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569)
Tek Beng refused.