ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY. ROGELIO the Bar.

He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred

JUAN A. CELERA institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014. contracting a second marriage while his first
PER CURIAM
marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Facts: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent Considering respondent's propensity to disregard
and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into a not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting
respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent in moral character, honesty, probity and good
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified officer of the court.
xerox copy of the certificate of marriage.
ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of
Bansig stressed that the marriage between grossly immoral conduct and willful
respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full disobedience of lawful orders rendering him
legal existence when he contracted his second unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful from the practice of law and his name stricken
authority. of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY.
marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS
A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000.
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct
MENDOZA, J.
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. Facts:

Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-
by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly answer payment of bar membership dues filed against
the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a letter-
decade. complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997,
complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a
Issue: member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Llamas, who
for a number of years now, has not indicated the
Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal
259060 but he has been using this for at least 3
Ruling: years already. On the other hand, respondent, who
is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a
Marriage Certificates bearing the name of senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence income taxes and included in this exemption, is the
payment of membership dues.
to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders
him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar Issue:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Whether or not the respondent has misled the court
about his standing in the IBP by using the same
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. years and therefore liable for his actions.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the Whether or not the respondent is exempt from
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and paying his membership dues owing to limited
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct Ruling:

that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life, Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
the legal profession.
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
degree of morality required of him as a member of dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is
also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the
the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of
court to be misled by any artifice. Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Ruling:
No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
membership and if nonpayment covers a period of Responsibility in notarizing a document without
1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the requiring the presence of the affiants.
delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It
does not matter whether or not respondent is only The notarization of documents ensures the
engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, authenticity and reliability of a document. As this
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior court previously explained:
citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable Notarization of a private document converts such
income does not exceed the poverty level as document into a public one, and renders it
determined by the National Economic and admissible in court without further proof of its
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and
exemption however does not include payment of the public at large must be able to rely upon the
membership or association dues. acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Notarization is
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court public interest in a substantial degree and the
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in protection of that interest requires preventing those
view of respondent's advanced age, his express who are not qualified or authorized to act as
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more notaries public from imposing upon the public and
temperate application of the law, we believe the the courts and administrative offices generally.
penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted
dues, whichever is later, is appropriate. to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and
Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE document given for notarization. The Deed of
(1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by
whichever is later. Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty.
Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty.
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA relied on the representations of the vendee.
A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015.
LEONEN, J. Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a
notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating
Facts: Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the
Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants, along respect for law and legal processes." He
with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 contumaciously delayed compliance with this
square meter parcel of land located in Sison, court’s order to file a Comment.
Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of
Absolute Sale over a land owned by the The act of disobeying a court order constitutes
complainants. The names of petitioners appeared violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe
appeared as the vendee. The complainants and maintain the respect due to the courts"
claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty.
before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed
Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the
certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were absence of the affiants, as well as failure to
forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s comply with an order from this court.
acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from
was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES
sister to have signed the document because they his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
were somewhere else at that time. Due to the PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being
forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant commissioned as a notary public. Respondent
Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe
filed a case of falsification of public document penalties will be imposed for any further breach
against Atty. Cefra and Paran. of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue:
 LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO documents in the place where the act is done. The
CABUCANA, JR. notary public or the officer taking the
A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014. acknowledgment shall certify that the person
MENDOZA, J. acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who
Facts: executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under
On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a
(complainant) filed a petition against Atty. seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana),
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines The requirement of affiant's personal appearance
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV
falsification of public document. of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which
provides that:
In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the
would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, person involved as signatory to the instrument or
Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed document –
Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed
by the parties in the said case and notarized before (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at time of the notarization; and
the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on
December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution (2) is not personally known to the notary public or
and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the otherwise identified by the notary public through
signatories therein testified that they signed the competent evidence of identity as defined by these
instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the Rules.
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that
because of the irregularity in the due execution of As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not
the Compromise Agreement, there was undue notarize a document unless the person who signs it
delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1- is the same person executing it and personally
689 which caused damage and injury to appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the contents. This is to enable him to verify the
Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that party and to ascertain that the document is the
he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule party's free and voluntary act and deed.
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant further WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty.
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating
against him after the hearing of the said case in Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional
MTCC. Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent
complaint was intended to harass him because he notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS
was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed him from being commissioned as a notary
against complainant before the MTCC; that public for two (2) years, effective immediately,
complainant had no cause of action as his right was with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
not violated because he was just a "would be" same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
buyer and not a party to the compromise severely.
agreement; and that complainant would not suffer
any damage by the pendency of the case or by any
defects obtaining in the notarization of the NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE,
compromise agreement. AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPE-
DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and
RODOLFO V. FELIPE
Issue: vs.
ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL
Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013.
Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the DEL CASTILLO, J.
presence of all the parties therein
Facts:
Ruling:
Petition for disbarment was filed against
Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal.
the Notarial Law states:
In A Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required
The acknowledgment shall be before a notary respondent to comment. Respondent received a
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or August 15, 1996, respondent filed an Urgent Ex-
Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar
Comment. He requested for additional period of 30 of the Philippines. He is WARNED that
days within which to file his comment citing commission of a similar infraction will be dealt
numerous professional commitments. We granted with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246
said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution. dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar
The extended deadline passed sans respondent’s of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549
comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of
file an Urgent Motion To Submit The Administrative this Resolution be entered in the personal
Case For Resolution Without Comment Of records of respondent as a member of the Bar,
Respondent claiming the respondent is deemed to and copies furnished the Office of the Bar
have waived his right to file comment. Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26, and the Office of the Court Administrator for
2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating circulation to all courts in the country.
Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its
Report and Recommendation.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE
In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.,
quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA,
then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA,
IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL
regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS;
was recommended that respondent be suspended and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO
from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR.
Petition, complainants alleged that they are co- G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013.
plaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the PER CURIAM.
defendants therein; that respondent committed
dishonesty when he stated in the defendants' Facts:
Answer that the parties therein are strangers to Issue:
each other despite knowing that the defendants are Ruling:
half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and
that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD
the defendants pending before Branch 36 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991
Complainants also alleged that respondent
introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part FACTS:
of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury
charge. Complainants insisted that by the foregoing Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as
actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay Appointments confirmed the appointment despite
complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged
the damages that they suffered. lack of the required qualification of 10 year law
practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
Issue:
prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in
Ruling: Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
orders of this Court and the IBP is not only citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct
is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are holders of a college degree, and must not have
particularly called upon to obey court orders and been candidates for any elective position in the
processes and are expected to stand foremost in immediately preceding elections.However, a
complying with court directives being themselves majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
officers of the court. As an officer of the court, members of the Philippine Bar who have been
respondent is expected to know that a resolution of engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
this Court is not a mere request but an order which
should be complied with promptly and completely. ISSUE:
This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
investigating arm of the Court in administrative 1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the
cases against lawyers. practice of law for 10 years.
Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand 2. Whether or not the Commission on
with warning commensurate to the infraction Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion
committed by the respondent.
in confirming Monsod’s appointment.
ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A.
HELD:
Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the that she was pregnant. The two went to her
conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces hometown, Ivisan, Capiz to apprise Magdalena’s
parents that they were married although they were
the preparation of pleadings and other papers
not.
incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on The respondent convinced Magdalena’s father to
behalf of clients, and other works where the work have the church wedding deferred until after he had
done involves the determination of the trained legal passed the bar examinations where he secured his
birth certificate preparatory to applying for a marriage
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA
license.
vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional
commission show that the interpretation of the term Segundino passed the bar examinations that was
practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers released April 25, 1975. After the oathtaking,
employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged Segundino stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Magdalena went to Davao to contact Segundino.
in the practice of law provided that they use their
Segundino told her that they could not get married for
legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. lack of money.
The court also cited an article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers In December 1975 Magdalena followed Segundino in
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as Bukidnon only to find out that their marriage could not
take place because he had married Erlinda Ang.
tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in Segundino followed Magdalena in Davao and inflicted
other works or functions to meet them. These days, physical injuries upon her because she had a
for example, most corporation lawyers are involved confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang.
in management policy formulation. Therefore,
Magdalena Arciga then filed a disbarment case on the
Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with ground of grossly immoral conduct because he
the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
worked for an investment bank till 1986, became
member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also Immoral conduct has been defined as "that
became a member of the Davide Commission in conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in opinion of the good and respectable members of
the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer- the community"
manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the Issue:

nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred and be
held liable for grossly immoral conduct.
power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the Ruling:
only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the No, Segundino Maniwang shouldn’t be disbarred. The
Supreme Court found that respondent’s refusal to
evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to
marry the complainant was not as corrupt or
exercise its corrective power since there is no such unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The complaint
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. for disbarment against the respondent is hereby
dismissed.
MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA VS SEGUNDINO D.
MANIWANG KHAN vs SIMBILLO
A.M. No. 1608. August 14, 1981. A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.
AQUINO, J. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Facts:
FACTS:
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted sometime
in October, 1970 at Cebu City. Magdalena was then a Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the
medical technology student in the Cebu Institute of Supreme Court, called up the published telephone
Medicine while Segundino was a law student in the
San Jose Recoletos College. They became number and pretended to be an interested party.
sweethearts, on March 1971, Magdalena and She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her
Segundino had sexual congress. Thereafter, they had husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
repeated acts of cohabitation. Segundino started handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
telling his acquaintances that he and Magdalena were
court decree within four to six months, provided the
secretly married.
case will not involve separation of property or
In 1972 Segundino transferred his residence to custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
Padada, Davao del Sur. He continued his studies to husband charges a fee of P48, 000.00, half of
Davao City. Magdalena discovered in January 1973 which is payable at the time of filing of the case and
the other half after a decision thereon has been encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
rendered. with their clients.

Additional research by the Office of the Court There is no question that respondent committed the
Administrator and the Public Information Office acts complained of. He himself admitted that he
revealed that similar advertisements were caused the publication of the advertisements. The
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Court ruled that respondent RIZALINO T.
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules
Philippine Star. 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in Rules of Court. Also, he is suspended from the
his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and practice of law for one year.
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. LINSANGAN vs TOLENTINO
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009.
his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule CORONA, J.
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
FACTS:
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
A complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but
Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
are not prohibited acts. Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.
ISSUE:
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help
Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
the Code of Professional Responsibility. clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance and expeditious
RULING: collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent
Yes, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 and them text messages.
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing
Rules of Court. Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the said calling card.
Also, practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not
ISSUE:
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, 1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
a secondary consideration. The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should RULING:
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
Yes. Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases
subordinate their personal interests or what they
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
owe to themselves. The following elements paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
distinguish the legal profession from a business: malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04
is a by-product, and in which one may attain the of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
highest eminence without making much money; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in
administration of justice involving thorough the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was
sincerity, integrity and reliability; connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s
actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of benefited.
fiduciary;
Moreover, Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
current business methods of advertising and service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. By recruiting Atty.Linsangan’s clients,
Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
predatory overstep into another’s legal practice. dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Nicomedes CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
Rules of Court and he was suspended from the that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
practice of law for a period of one year. nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs. ATTY. ALFREDO
CASTILLO The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance
A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003. and active service to the community is a just and
PER CURIAM reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of
Facts: two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that
Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three should be addressed to the proper court in a proper
children when he had an affair with Carmelita case.
Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to
1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and FEDERICO N. RAMOS vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A.
before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got NGASEO
pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The A.C. No. 6210. December 9, 2004.
latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
support which did not materialize after the birth of Facts:
the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for This is a complaint for suspension of respondent Atty.
reconsideration. Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the Civil Code by demanding from his client, complainant
paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of 1,000 square
his defense, the latter presented different meters of land, a litigated property, as payment for his
appearance fees.
certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer
and proving his good moral character. His wife
Sometime in 1998, complainant Federico Ramos
even submitted a handwritten letter stating his went to respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo’s Makati
amicability as a husband and father despite the office to engage his services as counsel in a case
affair. More than a year since the original decision involving a piece of land in San Carlos, Pangasinan.
rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
willingness to support the child to the Court and acceptance fee of P20, 000.00, appearance fee of P1,
attached a photocopy of post-dated checks 000.00 per hearing and the cost of meals,
addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to transportation and other incidental expenses.
December 2005 in the amount of Php 2,000.00 Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay
each. the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance
fees.
Issue:
On September 16, 1999, complainant went to the
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of respondent’s office to inquire about the status of the
gross immoral conduct, making him punishable of case. Respondent informed him that the decision was
Indefinite Suspension. adverse to them because a congressman exerted
pressure upon the trial judge. Respondent however
Ruling: assured him that they could still appeal the adverse
judgment and asked for the additional amount of P3,
850.00 and another P2, 000.00 on September 26,
2000 as allowance for research made.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent,
Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral
Although an appeal was filed, complainant however
conduct and should be punished with the penalty of charges the respondent of purposely failing to submit
Indefinite Suspension. The attempt of respondent a copy of the summons and copy of the assailed
to renege on his notarized statement recognizing decision. Subsequently, complainant learned that the
and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita respondent filed the notice of appeal 3 days after the
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his lapse of the reglementary period.
part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a
member of a noble profession, tantamount to self- On January 29, 2003, complainant received a
stultification. demand-letter from the respondent asking for the
delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: allegedly promised as payment for respondent’s
appearance fee.
 The family of the complainant and that of the
Respondent further contends that he can collect the respondent were very close and intimate with each
unpaid appearance fee even without a written other. Complainant, as well as two of her sisters, had
contract on the basis of the principle of quantum served respondents family as household helpers for
meruit. He claims that his acceptance and many years when they were still in Manila. Grupo also
appearance fees are reasonable because a Makati stated that the basis of his rendering legal services
based legal practitioner, would not handle a case for was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a
an acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and P1,000.00 friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded
per court appearance. that there was no atty-client relationship existing
between them.

Issue: IBP found respondent liable for violation of Rule 16.04

of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo, violated the Code of forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their
Professional Responsibility for demanding the clients unless the latter’s interests are protected by
delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which was the the nature of the case or by independent advice. The
subject of litigation. Investigating Commissioner found that respondent
failed to pay his clients money.
Ruling:

Yes. Atty. Ngaseo violated Rule 20.04 of the Code of Issue:

Professional Responsibility which provides “Rule
20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients Whether or not there was an attorney-client
concerning his compensation and shall resort to relationship.
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.” Ruling:

Rrespondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found Yes. There was an attorney-client relationship
guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the between Junio and Grupo. A lawyer shall not borrow
legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of money from his client unless the client’s interests are
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional fully protected by the nature of the case or by
Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a independent advice (Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
warning that repetition of the same act will be Responsibility).This rule is intended to prevent the
dealt with more severely. lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the
client.

ROSARIO JUNIO vs ATTY. SALVADOR M. GRUPO Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of
A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001 such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took
MENDOZA, J. advantage of his influence by not returning the
money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short
of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary
Facts: borrower of money is required by law to repay his
loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against conduct serves as an example.
Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice and gross
misconduct. WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty of
violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Rosario N. Junio alleged that sometime in 1995, she Responsibility and orders him suspended from
engaged the services of Atty. Grupo for the the practice of law for a period of one (1) month
redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer and to pay to respondent, within 30 days from
Certificate of Title No. 20394 registered in the name notice, the amount of P25,000.00 with interest at
of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes, the legal rate, computed from December 12,1996.
and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol.
In Re: Atty. David Briones
On 21 August 1995, Junio entrusted to respondent A.C. No. 5486. August 15, 2001
the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the PUNO, J.
redemption of the aforesaid property.

Notwithstanding the foregoing and for no valid reason, Facts:

respondent did not redeem the property; as a result of
which the right of redemption was lost and the This matter arose from the continued failure of
property was eventually forfeited.
Atty. David P. Briones, counsel for accused-
Because of respondent’s failure to redeem the appellant in G.R. No. 130965 (People of the
property, complainant had demanded the return of the Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan) pending
money which she entrusted to the former for the before the Second Division of this Court, to file
above-stated purpose. Despite repeated demands the required appellant's brief.
made by the complainant and without justifiable
cause, respondent has continuously refused to refund The notice to file appellant's brief was mailed to
the money entrusted to him.
Atty. Briones and was given thirty (30) days from
receipt of the notice within which to file the brief. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
However, Atty. Briones failed to file the required entrusted to him, and his negligence in
brief within the period. The Court ordered Atty. connection therewith shall render him liable.
Briones to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such He cannot deny that his office received a copy of
failure and to submit the required brief within ten the Court’s resolution ordering him to submit an
(10) days from notice. Atty. Briones failed to comply appellant’s brief. The registry return card shows
with the Court's directive within the specified that the notice to file appellant’s brief was received
period. Copy of said resolution was returned to the by the addressee. To exonerate himself from
Court unserved without specific reason. liability, Atty. Briones claims that his secretary did
not forward to him the mail matters received in his
The Court referred the matter of the repeated office. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to
failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the exercise due diligence in the practice of his
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation, profession. He should have taken the initiative to
report and recommendation. Through letter the IBP check with her if there are important matters
Commissioner required Atty. Briones to file his requiring his action or attention. Neither is the
Comment within 5 days from receipt of the said cessation of his law practice an excuse for his
letter. Atty. Briones, however, did not file any failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true
Comment. The Commissioner recommended that that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he
Atty. Briones be suspended for 6 months, which still could not ignore the directives coming from the
subsequently adopted and approved by the IBP Court. It does not appear from the records that Atty.
Board of Governors. Atty. Briones filed with the Briones has withdrawn his appearance. It should be
IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation in stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves
which he claimed that he filed a Comment on the his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
administrative case but the same was not regardless of its importance and whether he
considered by the investigating commissioner. The accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s fidelity to
IBP however denied the motion. Thereafter Atty. the cause of his client requires him to be ever
Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation and mindful of the responsibilities that should be
explained that he failed to file an appellant’s brief expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best
because he never received a copy of the resolution efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the
requiring him to file said brief. If ever a copy was interest of his client. The Code of Professional
received by his secretary, the latter was not able to Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his
give it to him because he had already ceased client with competence and diligence and he should
practicing law. never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

Issue: Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for six (6) months effective
Whether or not Atty. Briones should be suspended immediately.
from the practice of law.
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL
Ruling: E. MACALALAD
A.C. No. 8158. February 24, 2010.
YES. The failure of the counsel to submit the
BRION, J.
required brief within the reglementary period is an
offense that entails disciplinary action. His failure to Facts:
file an appellant’s has caused the appeal to remain
inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division
client, the accused himself, who continues to of the Department of Environment and Natural
languish in jail pending the resolution of his case. Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban
The accused in a criminal case has the right to a City. Although he is in public service, the DENR
swift and just disposition of his case. Lawyers are Secretary has given him the authority to engage
obliged to protect, not defeat, such right. The in the practice of law.
explanation of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply
While on official visit to Eastern Samar in
with the Court’s directive is unsatisfactory. Such October 2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to
omission can be attributed to pure negligence on Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz
the part of Atty. Briones which we deem Cabo-Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon
inexcusable. asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling
of a parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern
It is evident that respondent violated Rule 18.03 Samar and owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. For
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional a consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos
Responsibility to wit: (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task
to be completed within a period of eight (8)
months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Issue:
Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the
remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon Ruling:
received the certificate of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for

registration over the property.

Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty.

Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case
six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of

negligence in handling his case.

Ruling:

YES. In administrative cases against lawyers, the

quantum of proof required is preponderance of
evidence which the complainant has the burden
to discharge. The Court considered the evidence
presented and fully satisfies the required
quantum of proof in proving Atty. Macalalads
negligence.

Respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility provides for
the rule on negligence and states:

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

In addition to the above finding of negligence, the

Court dound Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account
for all the money received from the client. In this
case, Atty. Macalalad did not immediately
account for and promptly return the money he
received.

We impose on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the

penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION
from the practice of law for violations of Rule
16.03 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, effective upon
finality of this Decision. Atty. Macalalad is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs ATTY. GERARDO F.

LARA
A.C. No. 7024. January 30, 2009.
BRION, J.

Facts: