GACIAS vs. ATTY. BULAUITAN A.C. No. 7280 November 16, 2006 Facts: Respondent, Atty.

Balauitan sold to the petitioner a portion of his 1,242 square meter land located at Tuguegarao for P322,000.00. Petitioner upon payment of a total P300,000.00 learned that respondent mortgage the said land compeling the 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. Issue: Whether or not respondent acted in violation of the Rule 7.03 of the Code of professional Responsibility? Held: Rule 7.03 of the Code, provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the complainant involving a tiny parcel of land, a want of professional honesty. Such misdeed 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.

GUEVARRA vs. ATTY. EALA A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007 Facts: Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed in 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath." The cause of action stemed from respondents adulterous relationship with the wife of the petitioner which started on the day of the wedding of the petitioner. The adulterous relationship also caused the abandonment of the respondent of his wife and family. Petitioner, suffering from grave emotional humiliation, filed this cause of action. Issue: Whether or not respondent did immoral conduct, violated his oath of office, and violated the Canons of Code of Professional Responsibility? Held:

Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

NG vs. ATTY. ALAR Adm. Case No. 7252 November 22, 2006 Facts: A verified complaint was filed by complainant against Atty. Alar before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), for Disbarment. The cause of action stemed from an unfavorable decision of the NLRC against the case handled by the respondent as counsel where the counsel resort to undeserved language and disrespectful stance because of the unfavorable decision. Issue: Whether or not the respondent has violated the CPR on being disrespectful of the Court? Held: Use of unnecessary language jeopardizes high esteem in courts. It creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration which could have the effect of harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief. Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the publics perception of the legal profession.

ATTY. DALLONG-GALICINAO vs. ATTY. CASTRO A.C. No. 6396 October 25, 2005 Facts: Atty. Dallong-Galicinao, a Clerk of Court of the RTC of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent Atty. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The cause of action stemed from the utterance of profane languages by the respondent against the complainant in relation to a civil case where the respondent is a counsel causing embarrassment and humiliation to the complainant. Issue:

Whether or not respondent has violated the CPR on conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law? Held: The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.