Title of the Case: Embido vs. Pe, SRCA 1, A.C. NO.

6732 (2013)
FACTS:
A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the gravest
misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.
Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC, received a written communication from Mr. Ballam
Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the United Kingdom (UK). The letter requested a copy of the decision rendered by
Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of
Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo. RTC also received another letter
from Mr. Hunt, reiterating the request.
Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of the said case. It was then discovered
that the RTC had no record of such case wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the court files
revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria.
Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt sent a letter dated attaching a
machine copy of the purported decision which had been presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in
the UK. The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to communicate on the situation in
writing to the NBI, triggering the investigation of the falsification.
In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an affidavit wherein he stated that it was
the respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision for a fee of ₱60,000.00. The allegations
against the respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo, in an
affidavit.
Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted his counter-affidavit, whereby he denied any
participation in the falsification. Among his defenses were that, Mr. Dy Quioyo himself presented a copy to him
of what appeared to be a court decision, that the former admitted that he had caused the falsification, he even
advised the former that the falsified decision would not hold up in an investigation and that he had also learned
from Atty. Angeles Orquia, Jr. that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, had executed a sworn statement to the effect that
her late husband, Manuel Jalipa, had been responsible for making the falsified document at the instance of Dy
Quioyo.
The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In its report and
recommendation, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the respondent guilty
of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility, and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year.
The IBP Board of Governors in its resolution adopted and approved, with modification, the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending the respondent from the practice of law for
six years. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of which the same was denied. The IBP Board of
Governors then forwarded the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue/s: WON the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney’s Oath and Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes, the Court affirm the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. Indeed, the respondent was guilty of
grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision in consideration of a sum of money.
The respondent’s main defense consisted in blanket denial of imputation which is not persuasive. The
unworthiness of the sworn statement of Mrs. Jalipa relied upon by respondent as proof of authorship of the
falsification by the husband is immediately exposed and betrayed by the falsified decision being an almost
verbatim reproduction of the authentic decision penned by Judge Penuela in the real Special Proceedings Case
No. 084.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the
dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that
"a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether
in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."
Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high
degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this
country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of
a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.
The Court ruled that respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification of the
decision in a non-existent court proceeding in violation of the Code and Disbars him effective upon receipt of
this decision. The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys. This decision is without prejudice to any
pending or contemplated proceedings to be initiated against him.
Title of the Case: Suarez vs. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11064 (2016)
FACTS:
Bienvenida went to the office of Atty. Maravilla-Ona to seek the latter's legal assistance in transferring title to a
land, under her name. Respondent agreed to render her services for a consideration of forty-eight thousand
pesos (P48,000) by way of professional and legal fees. Accepting the engagement, petitioner turned over the
necessary documents to the respondent and gave the latter the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000) as down
payment, as evidenced by Official Receipt. Bienvenida were also able to pay the remaining balance in two (2)
installments.
Despite the lapse of a considerable period, petitioner did not receive any update on the status of the transfer of
land title under her name. Apparently, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to do anything to facilitate the said transfer of
title. Thus, Bienvenida opted not to push through with the transaction and, instead, claimed reimbursement for
the amounts she paid to respondent, to which the latter agreed.
After a year of waiting, Atty. Maravilla-Ona issued to Bienvenida a Bank of Commerce check in the amount of
fifty-eight thousand pesos (P58,000). However, to petitioner’s dismay, when she presented the check to the
bank, it was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Respondent thereafter made several promises to return
Bienvenida's money, which, up to this moment, remain unfulfilled.
Aggrieved, Bienvenida filed the instant administrative case before the CBD praying for the recovery of
P58,000, representing the amount of the dishonored check issued by Atty. Maravilla-Ona. The CBD through
Director for Bar Discipline Pura Angelica Y. Santiago, issued an Order requiring respondent to submit her
Answer to the complaint, with a warning that failing to do so would render her in default. However,
notwithstanding the said warning, Atty. Maravilla-Ona did not submit any Answer. Accordingly, respondent
was declared in default at the mandatory conference. The Case was submitted for report and recommendation to
the IBP.
The IBP in its report and recommendation found that respondent was guilty of gross misconduct and violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that Atty. Maravilla-Ona be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year and ordered to pay Bienvenida the amount of P58,000.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting the Report and Recommendation of the CBD with
the modification increasing Atty. Maravilla-Ona's penalty to disbarment.
Issue/s: WON the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes, the Court concur the IBP Board of Governor’s finding of administrative liability.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code provides that "lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
In the instant case, it is clear that respondent violated her sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code.
The records plainly show that Atty. Maravilla-Ona was completely remiss and negligent in fulfilling her
obligations as a lawyer to Bienvenida. After collecting the full amount of her professional and legal fees, Atty.
Maravilla-Ona did not take a single step to process the registration of land title in Bienvenida's name. Worse,
when asked to return the money she received from petitioner, respondent issued a worthless check which
consequently bounced when presented for payment.
Atty. Maravilla-Ona's failure to return Bienvenida's money is a breach of Rule 16.01 of the Code, which
provides that, “a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.”
Atty. Maravilla-Ona's agreement to render her legal services to Bienvenida, sealed by her receipt of her legal
fees, is an assurance and representation that she would be diligent and competent in fulfilling her
responsibilities as Bienvenida's lawyer. However, respondent acted to the contrary.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Atty. Maravilla-Ona's negligence, her failure to return her client's money, and her act of issuing a worthless
check constitute dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence, and betrayal of her client's interests. These acts
undoubtedly speak of deceit Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to
justice, modesty or good morals. These were also aggravated by her unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the
IBP directing her to file an answer to the complaint of Bienvenida and to appear at the scheduled mandatory
conference. This constitutes blatant disrespect for the IBP which amounts to conduct unbecoming lawyer.
The court also noted the past disbarment complaints filed against her of which she had been warned that a
similar violation will merit a more severe penalty, and yet, her reprehensible conduct has, again, brought
embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession. The Court cannot allow her blatant disregard of the Code
and her sworn duty as a member of the Bar to continue. The Court found the respondent guilty of gross
misconduct and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and orders his disbarment and to
restitute complainant the amount of P58,000.00 within 30 days from decision. Otherwise, respondent may be
held liable for contempt.
LOURDES BUSIÑOS vs ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT
A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997

Facts:
Respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort was charged with having misappropriated the sum of P30,000.00 intended
for his clients as well as having deceived his clients into giving him the sum of P2,000.00 purportedly to be
deposited as a bond in the case he was handling.

Complainant Lourdes R. Businos is one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 1584 involving the properties of his
father. Respondent was the counsel of record for the defendants in the said case. Complainant executed a
special power of attorney, appointing and constituting respondent to be her true and lawful attorney-in-fact.

Respondent received P25,000.00 rental deposit in connection with Civil Case No. 1584 and P5,000.00 from Oas
Standard High School as payment for rental of school site. The said sum was entrusted to respondent with an
obligation on his part to deposit the same in the account of complainant's husband at PNB, Ligao Branch.
Instead, however, of depositing the money, respondent converted the money to his own personal use, and
despite several demands, he failed to return the same to complainant. She was thus constrained to file a
criminal case for estafa and an administrative case for disbarment against him.

Complainant further accuses respondent for demanding and receiving P2,000.00, an amount respondent
demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required.

The initial case of estafa was subsequently dropped upon payment of the respondent of the amount allegedly
owed to the complainant. However, the administrative case was pursued by the complainant claiming gross
misconduct on the part of the respondent as to the delayed payment of debt even with repeated request in
addition to the asking of P2,000 as bond in a case handled by him, which was not even required.

Issue:
WON Atty. Francisco Ricafort be disbarred or suspended in his practice of law.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the respondent insufficient, therefore,
ruled to disbar Atty. Francisco Ricafort in relation to his palpable disregard of Sec 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, aggravated by a violation of Canon 11.

There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their consent.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be
immediately turned over to them. Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use
without their consent, and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly
to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded
himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

Thus, the Court Resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the practice of law.
MARILOU SEBASTIAN vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS
A.C. No. 5118 (1999)

Facts:
Complainant alleged that she was referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary
documents required for complainant’s trip to the USA for a fee of P150,000.00. When complainant inquired
about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer. The
complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity. Realizing that she will be travelling
with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by
respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for quite some
time; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.

Complainant was given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport complainant was apprehended by the Singapore Airport
Officials for carrying spurious travel documents and was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore.

Complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent took complainant’s passport with a
promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue
with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of P150,000.00. Respondent made
partial refunds of P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00. Complainant demanded respondent for the refund of
a remaining balance of P114,000.00 which was ignored by the respondent. Complainant went to see the
respondent, however his wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters.
Few months thereafter, complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out that the
respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.

Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the complaint,
there was no response. No appearance to hearings was made by the respondent.

Issue:
WON Atty. Dorotheo Calis be disbarred or suspended in his practice of law.

Ruling:
The court held that herein respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s acts are all for material gain.

A lawyer’s relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith,
fairness and candor. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral
character. This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in
his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and
renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP
and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional
conduct. Thus, the court decided in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his
unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant and grant complainant the recovery
of the P114,000.00 she paid to the respondent.
TITLE: RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH
270 SCRA 26, Bar Matter No. 712 (1997)

FACTS:
 Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however
deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide.
 The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte
(Raul Camaligan) during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and
seven (7) other accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight (8)
accused later withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
 On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11 February 1993 imposing on
each of the accused a sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years.
 On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for probation.
 On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6 April 1994 submitted by
the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge from probation.
 On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's
oath based on the order of his discharge from probation.
 On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a
resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he may now be
regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking
admission to the bar.
 In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six
(6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts
of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.
 On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment on
petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
 In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states that he is not in a position to say
whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar. He therefore submits the matter to the
sound discretion of the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not Petitioner is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath despite conviction of criminal case.

RULING:
YES. After a very careful evaluation of this case, the Supreme Court resolve to allow petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession
with the following admonition:
 In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not
inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout
Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
 The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul
Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general
tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
 We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing
law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be
faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned.
 The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the assistance he has been giving to his
community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and other services to the
more unfortunate members of society.
TITLE: WELLINGTON REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA, respondent
246 SCRA 64, A.M. No. 1048(1995)

FACTS:
 On March 30, 1971, at around 9:00 A.M, Wellington Reyes, a complainant, reported to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Atty. Gaa, the respondent
lawyer and a former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating a complaint for estafa
filed by complainant’s business rival.
 According to complainant, he had given respondent P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and a total of P500.00
on three other occasions. He said that another "payoff" was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. that day in
respondent's office at the City Hall.
 An entrapment was set up by the NBI. Complainant furnished the NBI agents several peso bills
totaling P150.00 for marking. The paper bills were sent to the Forensic and Chemistry Division of the
NBI and subsequently returned to complainant for the use in the entrapment.
 The complainant went to respondent's office. When finally the complainant was able to see the
respondent, the complainant then handed to respondent the marked money which he placed inside
his right pocket. The NBI agents then apprehended respondent and brought him to the NBI Forensic
and Chemistry Division for examination. Respondent was thereafter taken to the Office of the Anti-
Organized Crime Division of the NBI where he was photographed, fingerprinted and record checked.
 On the same date, the NBI recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of Section
3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
 On April 13, 1971, the NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of administrative
charges and the institution of disbarment proceedings against him.
 Aside from the aforementioned criminal complaint and the administrative case, two other cases were
earlier filed against respondent: namely, Administrative Case No. 10 for Grave Misconduct filed by
one Angel Alora on October 13, 1969, wherein respondent was found guilty as charged and was
recommended for suspension; and Administrative Case No. 10-A filed by Fabiola Fajardo on April
26, 1970, which was pending resolution.
 In a resolution dated December 23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to the
Solicitor General. However, upon the adoption of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the case
was transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and disposition.
 On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not the respondent should be disbarred on the grounds of misconduct and willful
violation of lawyer’s oath.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court agree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Wherefore, the respondent is DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of
Attorneys.
In the case at bench, respondent was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of receiving the marked
money from complainant during the entrapment conducted by the NBI agents, which resulted in his
arrest and the subsequent filing of administrative and criminal cases against him. In his defense,
respondent merely denied the charge of extortion and retorted that the marked money was planted by
complainant.
It is settled that affirmative testimony is given greater weight than negative testimony When the
integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he
must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains
that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him.
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the
bar on such grounds.
The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official, which also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
Title of the case: Sambajon vs. Suing 503 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 7062 (2006)
FACTS:
Complainants, via a complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), have sought the
disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing (respondent) on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyer's
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sambajon, et al. are parties to a previous labor case in which the Atty. Jose Suing is the counsel of their
employer Microplast, Inc. A judgment in favor of them was rendered by the Labor Arbiter and a writ of
execution was issued against Microplast, Inc.
In the meantime, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case insofar as the seven complainants are concerned on the
basis of individual Release Waiver and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn to by them.
Four of the seven who purportedly executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed and
sworn to before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the considerations therefor. They
subsequently filed an administrative complaint alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients
Johnny and Manuel Rodil, ―frustrated‖ the implementation of the Writ of Execution by presenting before the
Labor Arbiter the spurious documents. A Complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing on the
grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility was also
filed.
During the administrative hearings before the IBP Commissioner, it was apparent that Atty. Suing was coaching
his client to prevent himself from being incriminated. It was also revealed that the Release Waiver and
Quitclaims allegedly signed were not the same documents originally presented to the employees to be signed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Suing is an act arguably violative of the Lawyers’ Code of
Ethics
RULING:
Yes, Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of negligence and gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence.‖ A
lawyer serves his client with diligence by adopting that norm of practice expected of men of good intentions. He
thus owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights,
and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill, and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from
him, save by the rules of law legally applied. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is
eternal diligence to the cause of the client.
The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that ―extreme measure
of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their
rights. All that is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater
familias.
In the case at bar, not only did Atty. Suing try to coach his client or influence him to answer questions in an
apparent attempt not to incriminate him. His client contradicted Atty. Suing’s claim that the Release Waiver and
Quitclaim which he prepared was not the one presented at the Arbiter’s Office, as well as his implied claim that
he was not involved in releasing to the complainants the money for and in consideration of the execution of the
documents.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the administration of justice. He is an instrument
to advance its cause. Any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct. While the Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are
nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in reality an investigation by the Court into
the misconduct of its officers or an examination into his character.
Title of the case: Delos Santos II vs. Barbosa 758 SCRA 615, A.C. No. 6681 (2015)

FACTS:

Antecedent Facts

A complaint for Falsification of Public Document was filed by Melba D. De Los Santos Rodis (Rodis) against
her, father, Ricardo D. De Los Santos, Sr. (De Los Santos, Sr.) and Rosie P. Canaco (Canaco). Rodis alleged
that Canaco made untruthful statements in the certificate of live birth of her son, Victor Canaco De Los Santos.

At the preliminary conference held on May 24, 2004, the respondent, as counsel de parte of Canaco, objected to
the Prosecution’s offer in evidence of the photocopy of the birth record of Victor Canaco Delos Santos. As a
result, the MeTC issued an order resetting the preliminary conference to October 19, 2004 in order to give the
prosecution time to file a certified true copy of the birth certificate.

On May 25, 2004, the respondent sent letters dated May 24, 2004 to the Office of the Civil Registrar of Quezon
City, the National Census and Statistics Office, and St. Luke’s Hospital. On October 19, 2004, the MeTC noted
the manifestation of the complainant that they failed to secure a certified true copy of the birth certificate of the
accused’s son because of the respondent’s letter.

In defense, the respondent argued, among others, that the name of his client Canaco’s son is VICTOR C. DE
LOS SANTOS and not VICTOR P. DE LOS SANTOS. The prosecutor dismissed the obstruction of justice
complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

The Case

On February 22, 2005, the complainant filed a Petition for Disbarment with the Court, charging the respondent
with multiple gross violations of his oath as a lawyer and Canons of Professional Ethics for unlawfully
obstructing and delaying the proceedings in Criminal Case against Canaco.

The complainant alleged that the respondent’s act of sending out the letters dated May 24, 2004 was criminally
and maliciously done to delay, impeded, obstruct, or otherwise frustrate the prosecution of Canaco, who is the
respondent’s client. The complainant further contended that the respondent’s letters were not justified by any
tenable and lawful defense and were made to suppress and conceal the subject birth record to impair its
availability, authenticity, verity, or admissibility as evidence.

Issue: Whether or not acts of respondent constituted multiple gross violations of his oath as a lawyer, of the
Canons of Professional Ethics, and of his duties as an attorney under the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Nestor C. Barbosa is guilty of violating specifically Rules 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of
Canon 10, and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED
for one (1) year from and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

After a careful study of the records, the Court approves the findings of the IBP Commission and the IBP Board
of Governors.

Unduly Delaying the Proceedings. Under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers should
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

The respondent’s acts of objecting to the offer in evidence of a photocopy of the birth certificate of Victor C. De
Los Santos which necessitated the postponement of the preliminary conference in order to afford the
prosecution the opportunity to secure a certified true copy thereof was a calculated play to delay the successful
prosecution of the case. To guarantee its further delay, on the same day of the preliminary conference; i.e., on
24 May 2004, he prepared the letter to prevent or delay the issuance of the certified true copy of the birth
certificate. Such conduct is unethical, improper and inexcusable.
Misleading the Court as to the Identity of his Client. Under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court
The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP Commissioner that the difference in the middle initial is a mere
typographical error on the part of the City Prosecutor. The criminal case involved one and the same Victor
Canaco de los Santos whose birth certificate has been at issue. Members of the Bar are expected at all times to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission, that might lessen
the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, RESPONDENT

The Case:
Manuel S. Sebastian (complainant) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily A. Bajar (respondent)

Facts of the Case:

•Respondent is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) who represented Fernando
Tanlioco. Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of a land owned by complainant's spouse and sister-in-law
(landowners). The landowners filed an Ejectment case against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the
land use from agricultural to residential.
•The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment ordering Tanlioco's ejectment. The RTC's judgment was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
•Respondent, as Tanlioco's counsel, filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion
order. The RTC dismissed the complaint due to res judicata and lack of cause of action.
•
Respondent filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board. The case raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation
•It was alleged that the respondent was in violation of Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
since she misused the rules of procedure through forum-shopping to obstruct the administration of justice.
Respondents response are:
1. Complainant is not the real party-in-interest. He is also not authorized to prosecute the disbarment suit
2. Respondent has fulfilled allegiance to the "Attorney's Oath" and performed duties in accordance with Section
20 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
3. Respondent's client, Tanlioco, merely availed of all legal remedies to obtain benefits secured for him by law
•Complainant’s reply is alleged that respondent did not confront the issues of her disbarment squarely but raised
issues that were decided upon with finality by the courts
•The court ordered the respondent on March 25, 1992 to file a rejoinder within 10 Days from notice. Which the
respondent failed to perform
On October 7, 1992, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why she should not be subjected to
disciplinary action for failure to comply with the Court's 25 March 1992 Resolution
• On 4 October 1996, IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner Jose's
recommendation that respondent be "SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY” from the practice of law for Unethical
Practices and attitude. The resolution was noted by the Court
• Despite the resolution for suspension, the respondent continued to practice law as a prosecutor in
Mandaluyong, she believed that a notation by the Court in the 20 January 1997 Resolution did not mean an
implementation of the IBP's Resolution on her indefinite suspension
• The IBP adopted Investigating Commissioner Raval's Report and Recommendation that respondent be
disbarred for her "manifest flagrant misconduct in disobeying the SC Order of her Indefinite Suspension.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the defense that the respondent the she merely availed of all the legal remedies for her client
is tenable?
2. Whether or not disbarment is the proper penalty for the respondent?

Ruling:
1. No, In Suzuki v. Tiamson, the Court enunciated that "while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's rights, they should not forget that they are first and
foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice."
Respondent abused her right of recourse to the courts. Respondent, acting as Tanlioco's counsel, filed cases for
Specific Performance and Maintenance of Possession despite the finality of the decision in the Ejectment case
which involves the same issues. Indeed, "while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be
at the expense of truth and administration of justice

2. No, The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect
the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has shown her great
propensity to disregard court orders. Respondent's acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer of the
court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal profession.  However, the Court will not disbar a
lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. Respondent's acts constitute
gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court.  Respondent also violated Canon
19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her suspension is consequently warranted. Therefore, the
respondent should not be disbarred, but only suspended for three years, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely

PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.

The Case: complaint for disbarment filed by Patrocinia H. Salabao (complainant) against Atty. Andres C.
Villaruel, Jr. (respondent)

Facts of the Case:

Respondent was a lawyer for Elmer Lumberio who had lost a case of deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking
her precious real property against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court. There after respondent as lawyer of
Lumberio, filed a barrage of cases/pleadings such as an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the
RTC ruling, a petition for review with the Supreme Court which was denied for having been filed out of time; a
petition for annulment of the RTC judgment which was dismissed by the CA; another petition for review before
this Court which was again denied; a petition for certiorari which was dismissed by the CA; another civil case
before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon which was dismissed for "improper venue, res judicata, and violation of
the anti-forum shopping law" and that it involved the same issues as the one filed in Pasig RTC. Moreover, he
filed several inhibitions, motions and an administrative complaint against the presiding judge.

In this case, the judgment in favor of complainant had become final and executory by July 27, 2005.
Respondent however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12) motions and cases in various courts subsequent
to the Entry of Judgment:
Regional Trial Court of Taguig City:
1. Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April 27,2006
2 Motion to Admit Affidavit of Third-Party Claimant
3. Motion for Early Resolution
4. Motion to Observe Judicial Courtesy while the case is pending appeal with the Court of Appeals
5. Urgent Motion to Defer/Suspend Execution in view of the Order of the CA
6. Urgent Motion to Reconsider Order
Court of Appeals:
1. Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals
2. Motion for Reconsideration
3. Petition for Certiorari
4. Urgent Motion to Reiterate the Issuance of Order for Judicial Courtesy
Supreme Court:
1.Petition for Certiorari
2.Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
Respondents defense was that he was merely exhausting all possible legal remedies available.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the respondent was guilty of abuse of court processes in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and
Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
2. Whether or not disbarment is the proper penalty for the respondent?

Ruling
1. Yes, While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be emphasized
enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of justice
From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear that respondent's intention was to delay
the execution of the final judgment
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court processes,
employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment, and feigning ignorance of Ms duties as
an officer of the court. He has breached his sworn duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable for his actions.

2. No, In previous decisions involving abuse of court processes, this Court has imposed the penalty of
suspension ranging from six months to two years. In light of the following aggravating circumstances -
multiplicity of motions and cases filed by respondent, the malice evinced by his filing of various motions to
prevent the judges and sheriff from fulfilling their legal duties, feigned ignorance of his duties as an officer of
the court, and his lack of remorse for his actions - the Court finds that a penalty of suspension for 18 months
would be commensurate to the damage and prejudice that respondent has inflicted on complainant Salabao for
his actions.

Pedro Ramos VS. Atty. Nympha C. Mandagan

 A.C. No. 11128
April 6, 2016

Facts
It is an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent lawyer for the violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Atty. Mandagan allegedly demanded Php 300,000.00 in connection with the criminal case against Pedro
Ramos whom the latter believed that such amount is a bail bond which is then denied by the Sandiganbayan.
The respondent then, withdraw from the case without such amount despite of its demand by the petitioner.
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-CBD) mediates in the case through
arranging a conference between the two parties which the respondent failed to adhere. On December 18,
2013, the IBP-CBD find the respondent liable for gross misconduct and recommends a suspension. The Court
finds the IBP-CBD’s recommendations to be proper under the circumstances.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is guilty of violating the CPR.
Held
YES. The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Atty. Mandagan is guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule
16.03 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to the petitioner is a
violation of the trust reposed on her. The respondent should be scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted to her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from
members of the bar, thus the SC suspends her from the practice of law for a period

Manuel L. Lee VS. Atty. Regino B. Tambago

 A.C. No. 5281
February 12, 2008

Facts
A letter-complaint against the respondent for the violation of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal
profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
Petitioner alleged that the witnesses’ signatures were forge and so does his father’s for being “in any way
entirely and diametrically opposed from one another in all angles”. Notation of the residence certificates of
the purported witnesses was also absent. The date of the will is also questionable because on June 30, 1965,
the will was purportedly executed and acknowledged while on January 5, 1962 is the date wherein the
residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgement of the will. Moreover, no copy of such
purported will was on file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) as the respondent admitted this fact.
Respondents argued about him being falsely accused and that such petition is motivated by criminal case filed
by the complainant against him in the Ombudsman “did not prosper” making it seems like a harassment.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and made recommendation that the respondent be
suspended from the practice from one year, revoked and disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for
two (2) years.
Issue:
Whether the respondent negligently acted in his notarial service.
Held
YES. The Supreme Court (SC) found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct as he violated (1) the
Lawyer’s Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the provisions of the old Notarial Law.
Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the performance of the elementary duties of his office. The SC
find that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in question.

Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial
commission revoked and he is perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

Valencia vs. Antiniw 566 SCRA 503, A.C. No. 1302(2008)

FACTS:
This is an appeal for reinstatement to the Bar of respondent Dionisio C. Antiniw.
The record shows that respondent was disbarred and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys on April 26,
1991 in a consolidated Decision4 of this Court, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In the aforesaid decision, respondent was found guilty of malpractice in falsifying a notarized deed of sale and
subsequently introducing the same as evidence for his client in court.

Respondent filed an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the respondent who was disbarred on April 26, 1991 for
falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent filed
several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the bar. His motions and appeals were accompanied by endorsements
of his good moral character by various organizations such as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges of the Regional
Trial Courts of Lingayen and Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board
of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law.

RULING:

Records show that the long period of respondent’s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct,
to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again of conduct
demanded of every member of the bar. It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary proceedings is restorative
justice, not retribution. Guided by their doctrine and considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily
showing his contribution and his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Supreme Court find that
it is now time to lift respondent’s disbarment.

Camino vs. Pasagui, A.C. No. 11095(2016)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent violated their agreement for the latter to facilitate and secure a loan in order to
finance the payment of necessary expenses to transfer the title of a certain property under her name. She claimed that
respondent obtained a loan in her name and that of her husband, using their property as collateral, but Atty. Pasagui
arrogated the proceeds thereof to himself. In a Per Curiam  Decision the Court, ruling in favor of the complainant, found
that respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct for converting the money of his client to his own
personal use without her consent. By his failure to make good of their agreement to use the proceeds of the loan for the
transfer of the title in complainant's name, Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and confidence reposed upon him
by his client, but he is likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. The Court affirmed the findings and
conclusions of the IBP Board of Governors, but modified the recommended penalty and instead imposed the penalty to
Disbarment. 

The Court also ordered Atty. Pasagui to return the loan proceeds he received with interest together with all the
documents pertinent to the loan application and those he received from the complainant.

In the present Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, complainant now prays for the issuance of a Writ of Execution
for the enforcement of the said judgment.

ISSUE:

Which court should issue the writ of execution 

Who must execute it

RULING: 

Generally, once a judgment or order becomes final and executory, the judgment obligee may file a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution in the court of origin as provided for under Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the
court of origin to issue the writ of execution. Likewise, a judgment or final order may also be executed pending appeal as
provided for in Rule 39, Sec. 2. Corollarily, judgments declared to be immediately executory, as in the present case, are
enforceable after their rendition. Similar to judgments or orders that become final and executory, the execution of the
decision in the case at bar is already a matter of right.  The judgment obligee may, therefore, file a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution in the court of origin as provided for under Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. In this particular case, however, the case did not originate from the lower courts, but instead is an original
action for disbarment filed by the complainant against Atty. Pasagui, accusing the latter of Estafa through Abuse of
Confidence. Consequently, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court should issue the Writ of Execution prayed for. But, in as much as this Court does not have a sheriff of its own to
execute its own decision and considering that the complainant resides in Tacloban City, the Ex-Officio  Sheriff of
Tacloban City is directed to execute the money judgment against the respondent in accordance with Rule 39, Section
9 of the Rules of Court. Likewise, the Ex-Officio  Sheriff of Tacloban City is ordered to enforce the Court's directive for
respondent to return all the pertinent documents in his possession to the complainant pursuant to Section 11 of the
Rules of Court.

Lopez vs. Limos, A.C. No. 7618(2016)

FACTS: 
Complainants, who are spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez, who are living abroad, wanted to adopt a minor
child, Ethan Benedict Victore and hired a lawyer Atty. Sinamar Limos, as their counsel. In connection to this,
they paid legal fees to Limos which she duly received. A few months after, the spouses came here in the
Philippines for a 2-week to stay for the purpose of filing the petition of the adoption of the child. But despite of
the payment and submission of the required documents by the spouses, no petition was filed. After almost a
year, the complainants received a letter from respondent informing them that they need to come home to the
Philippines because Limos had already filed the petition of adoption in the court and they needed to appear and
testify in the court. So the complainants returned to the Philippines but found out that there was no petition filed
by Limos on their behalf. Because of that, they withdrew from the services of Limos and demanded her to
return the money they had already paid to her. They hired another lawyer to replace Limos. But Limos refused
to return the money contesting that the said payment is for the acceptance fee and it cannot be returned to the
complainants. Hence, the spouses filed an administrative case in the Court against Limos. The Court imposed a
fine to Limos and referred the case to the IBP for further investigation.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent can be held administratively liable in violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
Yes, the Court find Atty. Limos guilty in violating certain rules in the CPR. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL
SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Under the
foregoing provisions, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
upon him.21 Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable
negligence for which he must be held administratively liable,22 as in this case. CANON 16 - A LAWYER
SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO
HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client. Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a
lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.23 The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer
the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.24 Thus, a lawyer's
failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client - as in this case - gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics. Accordingly, she is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, effective upon the finality of this
Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Furthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return to complainants-spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez the legal
fees she received from the latter.

Heenan vs. Espejo, 711 SCRA 290 A.C. No. 10050(2013)

FACTS:
Sometime in January 2009, Victoria met Atty. Espejo through her godmother, Corazon Eusebio (Corazon). Following the
introduction, Corazon told Victoria that Atty. Espejo was her lawyer in need of money and wanted to borrow two
hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP 250,000) from her (Victoria). Victoria then gave Atty Espejo the money. In turn, Atty
Espejo issued a check worth P275,000 dated February 2, 2009, covering the principal amount plus the interest.

On due date, Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the deposit of the check for the reason that she was still waiting
for the release of the proceeds of a bank loan to fund the check. Months later, Victoria waited for nothing and received
no word from Atty Espejo. On July, Victoria received a check issued by Espejo worth P50,000. Upon deposit, check
bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Victoria decided to deposit the first check which bounced. So she demanded
payment in a letter dated Aug 3, 2009. Atty Espejo still refused to pay, so Victoria filed a criminal complaint (BP22 and
Estafa) before the Prosecutor’s Office in QC. Atty Espejo disregarded the notices and subpoenas but attended one
preliminary investigation where she promised to pay her loan. So in November 2009, Atty Espejo issued again a check
dated December 8, 2009 which bounced again. So a case was filed by Victoria before the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to which Atty Espejo consistently ignored despite orders and
notifications by the CBD. CBD recommended 5 years suspension.

CBD reasons: The failure of a lawyer to answer the complaint for disbarment despite due notice and to appear on the
scheduled hearings set, shows his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrates his deficiency for his
oath of office as a lawyer, which deserves disciplinary sanction.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Espejo should be suspended from the practice of law and as a member of the Bar

HELD:

Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned.

Atty. Espejo’s issuance of worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed the directives of the Quezon City Prosecutor’s
Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

While the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non- professional or private
capacity, the Court may be justified in suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside of the
lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege which
his licenses and the law confer.

Issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as
to render her unworthy of public confidence.