[A.C. No. 5916. July 1, 2003]  The defense proffered by respondent is untenable.

It is evident from the records that he made

SELWYN F. LAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL, respondent. several promises to pay his debt promptly. However, he reneged on his obligation despite
sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing and transferred
“The deliberate failcure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
the blame to complainant, on the contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept the
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law.”
former’s plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no obligation to accept
it, considering respondents previous failure to comply with earlier payment plans for the same
debt.
FACTS:  Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to
the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial
 This administrative case stems from a Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Integrated Bar of the
obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Engr. Selwyn F. Lao against Atty.
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may
Robert W. Medel who was charged therein with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be
unbecoming an attorney.
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or to be unworthy to
 The complaint arose from the respondent’s persistent refusal to make good on four (4) RCBC continue as officers of the Court.
checks totaling P22,000.
 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to obey
 Despite respondent’s several promises to pay, he failed to fulfill the same. the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides
 In his answer, respondent reasons that because all of his proposals to settle his obligation that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In Co v.
were rejected, he was unable to comply with his promise to pay complainant. Respondent also Bernardino, the Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as a violation of this Rule
maintains that the Complaint did not constitute a valid ground for disciplinary action because and an act constituting gross misconduct. It explained thus:
based on the provisions stated under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the ROC, the alleged issuance of a
worthless check, in violation of B.P. 22, is NOT one of the grounds for disciplinary action The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court
against a member of the Bar, to warrant his disbarment or suspension from his office as may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-
attorney, by the Supreme Court and does NOT constitute dishonest, immoral or deceitful professional or private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 5569 [1923]). Where,
conduct, under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so
 Both parties appeared before the IBP-CBD for their scheduled hearing. But, while waiting for gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of
the case to be called, respondent suddenly insisted on leaving, supposedly to attend to a the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be
family emergency. Complainant’s counsel objected and the IBP Commissioner, who was still justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney (In Re Sotto,
conducting a hearing in another case, ordered him to wait. He, however, retorted in a loud 38 Phil. 569 [1923]).
voice, “It’s up to you, this is only disbarment, my family is more important.” And, despite the
objection and the warning, he arrogantly left. He made no effort to comply with his undertaking  While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between complainant and
to settle his indebtedness before leaving. respondent as the transaction between them did not require the professional legal services of
 IBP Recommendation: Respondent is found guilty of violating the attorney’s oath and the Code respondent, nevertheless respondent's abject conduct merits condemnation from this Court.
of Professional Responsibility. Contrary to respondent’s claim, violation of BP 22 was a crime  As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re Vicente Pelaez [44 Phil.567 (1923)]
that involved moral turpitude. The investigating commissioner recommended that respondent the principle that it can exercise its power to discipline lawyers for causes which do not involve
be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. the relationship of an attorney and client x x x In disciplining the respondent, Mr. Justice
ISSUE: WON respondent is liable for gross misconduct for failure to pay debts and for Malcolm said: x x x As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline
one of its officers for misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private
the issuance of worthless checks.
capacity. But this is a general rule with many exceptions x x x. The nature of the office, the
RULING: Yes. trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney,
and the statutory rules prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an
 Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, attorney shall be a person of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held
system is ensured. that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
 In the present case, respondent has been brought to this Court for failure to pay his debts and profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties,
for issuing worthless checks as payment for his loan from complainant. While acknowledging which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
the fact that he issued several worthless checks, he contends that such act constitutes neither license and the law confer upon him x x x.
a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; nor dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
  We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege. It demands a high degree of  “IRR of the National Integrated Protected Areas System prohibited the illegal selling of rights
good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing or possession of the areas occupied within the Bataan Natural Park… a fact supposed to be
requirement for the practice of law. In this case, respondent fell short of the exacting standards known by the respondent being a resident of Balanga, Bataan and was in the practice of his
expected of him as a guardian of law and justice. profession also in said area”
 “Absolute Deed of Sale executed between the complainant Wilson Po Cham and the
WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED respondent relative to the same subject property was not notarized which partook the nature
for one year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a of a private and not official document”
repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.  False representation evidenced by respondents failure to show permit from the government,
giving them rights over the property, which is no alienable and disposable
 “Respondent being extensively conversant and knowledgeable about the law took advantage
of his versatility in the practice of law and committed misrepresentations that he and his co-
owners have irrevocable rights, interests and possession over the subject property”
WILSON PO CHAM, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO D. PIZARRO, respondent. Issue: WON Pizarro violated Rule 7.03 of the CPR
CARPIO MORALES, J.: Held: Yes
“[A] member should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and
Facts:
trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession” (Rule 7.03: nor
shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession)
 Administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Wilson Po Cham (complainant) against Atty.
Edilberto D. Pizarro (respondent) for commission of falsehood and misrepresentations in “The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
violation of a lawyers oath (by committing manifest falsehood and evident misrepresentation wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the
by employing fraudulent means to lure him into buying rights over the property which property privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or
he represented to be disposable and alienable) suspension.”
 Complainant was approached by several persons, including then Municipal Assessor of “Respondent must thus be faulted for fraudulently inducing complainant to purchase, for P3,372,533.00,
Morong, Bataan for the sale of a parcel of land. Having expressed his interest in the offer, non-existent irrevocable rights, interest and participation over an inalienable property.”
Cham met with respondent, who presented to him that the land was alienable and disposable.
To support this, Pizarro showed a (1) Real Property Tax Order of Payment; (2) Deed of
Absolute Sale executed on July 1995, where allegedly the original occupant Jose Monzon “As important as it is that an attorney be competent to deal with the oftentimes intricate matters which
transfers all his rights, interest, and possession of land to the respondent and two others may be intrusted to him, it is infinitely more so that he be upright and trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is not
(Banzon and Zabala); and (3) SPA by Banzon and Zabala authorizing him to negotiate, enter easy to limit membership in the profession to those who satisfy the standard of test of fitness. But scant
into contract, and receive payment for the sale of the subject land progress in that direction can be hoped for if, in the determination of the qualification of professional
fitness, non-professional dishonor and dishonesty in whatsoever path of life is to be
 Upon complainant’s payment of P3,372,533.00, the property was transferred and conveyed to
ignored. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty
him
and dishonor in other relations. x x x misconduct, indicative of moral unfitness for the profession,
Location : Pook Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan | Area : That portion of Lot 1683, Cad. 262, Morong whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies dismission as well as exclusion from the bar.
Cadastre, containing an area of 392,155 square meters more or less. | Boundaries : North : Right of Catalino Agujo, (Mr. Chief Justice Prentice in In Re Disbarment of Peck)”
South : National Road, Bagac-Morong, West : Right of Nicasio Canta, East : Sapang Batang Panao

 Cham subsequently took possession of the property and installed a barbed wire fence at its WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
front portion. Soon after, however, a forest guard approached him and informed him that the One (1) Year and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will merit a more
property could not be fenced as it was part of the Bataan National Park severe penalty.
 Cham also inquired with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office and
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office. Both issued certifications that the
subject property is not alienable or disposable
 Despite repeated demands, respondent refused to return the purchase price of the rights over
the property
[A.C. No. 6963             February 9, 2006]
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors): respondent violated
his oath as a member of the Bar to do no falsehood and misrepresentations, recommended his VICTORINA BAUTISTA, Complainant, 
suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, Respondent.
Complaint for suspension or disbarment for malpractice and unethical conduct in the performance WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial
of his duties as a notary public and a lawyer. commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of
FACTS: law for a period of one year, effective immediately. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same
 January 3, 1998 - Bernabe prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay executed by or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of receipt of this
Donato Salonga and Basilia de la Cruz (Victorina Bautista’s Mother). Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect.
 Subject of the document was a parcel of land, being occupied by a Rodolfo Lucas and his
family for more than 30 years. [A.C. No. 5442. January 26, 2004]
 Bautista contending his mother could not have executed the document because she’s been MERCEDES NAVA, complainant, vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SORONGON, respondent.
dead since January 28, 1961.
 Bernabe denied knowledge of the death of Basilia, contending no forgery happened for it was FACTS:
signed by certain Pronebo (claiming to be son-in-law of Basilia), as shown by the word "by" on  Mercedes Nava has charged Atty. Benjamin P. Sorongon with dishonest conduct and
top of the name of Basilia. representing clients with conflicting interest, in violation of the Code of Professional
 April 4, 2005 – respondent filed an affidavit of desistance, saying that she was tricked into Responsibility. She alleged that the respondent had been her counsel for many years
signing the case against Atty. Bernabe and she wished to desist. and had represented her in various cases. The respondent informed her of his intention
 August 29, 2005 - Investigating Commissioner, recommended: to withdraw as her counsel in two of her cases due to his recent stroke which resulted in
o Atty. Bernabe to be suspended for 1 month, existing commission as Notary Public be the paralysis of his right body .He proposed to be retained as the complainants counsel
revoked, and be barred from being granted a notarial commission for a period of one in Criminal Cases considering that the said cases did not involve too much paper work. 
year.
 October 22, 2005 - Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the recommendation  The complainant alleged that she continuously paid for the services of the respondent,
of the Investigating Commissioner with modification: suspension from practice of law for 1year, the latter represented other clients with hostile interests and filed cases against her on
notarial commission revoked and disqualified for reappointment as NP for 2years. their behalf.

ISSUE: Whether or not complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint exonerates respondent  Atty. Sorongon, the respondent , assisted one Francisco Atas in collecting the amounts
or put an end to the administrative proceedings. due against the complainant, Nava. The respondent sent a Demand Letter to the
complainant. Upon her failure to settle the obligation, the respondent himself assisted
RULING: No. Atas in filing a formal complaint against the complainant .

 The complainant expressed her disbelief at the cases he filed against her and reminding
Ratio: the respondent of his ethical and moral responsibility as her lawyer.
 A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record,  The Commissioner asserts that at the time the respondent accepted his engagement as
the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on Francisco Atas counsel and filed a case against the complainant, he was still acting as
the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil counsel for the latter in a number of cases. It was recommended that the respondent be
action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years with a warning that a
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice  The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar approved the report and
in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. and recommendation of the investigating Commissioner. with  modification as to
The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged penalty to conform to the evidence, and considering the respondents clear violation of
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all the prohibition against representing conflicting interests, Atty. Benjamin P. Sorongon is
good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. hereby SUSPENDED  from the practice of law for one (1) year with a Warning that a
similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 Respondent’s alleged lack of knowledge of Basilia’s death does not excuse him. It was his
duty to require the personal appearance of the affiant before affixing his notarial seal and  When the respondent learned of the said IBP resolution, he promptly moved for the
signature on the instrument. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the reconsideration of the same, alleging that no formal investigation had been
performance of his function as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of the law. conducted. 
 Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia.  IBP Board of Governors denied the respondents motion for reconsideration, since
The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone. pursuant to Section 12 (b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Board has no more
jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed to the Supreme Court.
Dispositive:
 ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT IBP MAY APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE by Kokseng was the same SPA which was presented to him for signature by respondent in
INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER WITHOUT PRIOR INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN. December 1998. As a result, the titles and other documents were received and taken by other
persons without his or his co-heirs knowledge and consent.
HELD: NO , The IBP may not approve recommendations without formal investigation.
 Complainant contends that the said SPA was prepared and notarized by the law office of
RATIO: respondent and the latter stood as a witness to the public instrument. Complainant further
avers that respondent used to do some legal work for him and knew fully well that Kokseng
A perusal of the records will show that indeed, no formal investigation was conducted by has already ceased to be his and his co-heirs guardian when the RTC, Branch 19 of Cebu City
the IBP in the instant case before it issued the questioned resolution. terminated the letters of guardianship over her youngest sibling on 30 August 1985 in the case
In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement. entitled In the Matter of Guardianship of Tirso M. Uytengsu III, Kathleen Anne M. Uytengsu,
and Barbara Anne M. Uytengsu, docketed as SP Proc. No. 3039-R.
 The Court may dispense with the normal referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines if the  In essence, complainant asserts that respondent caused Kokseng to execute an SPA in favor
records are complete and the question raised is simple. Similarly, if no further factual of Wee and/or Jacobo to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr. even if
determination is necessary, the Court may decide the case on the basis of the extensive he knew that Kokseng had no authority to do so.
pleadings on record.

 As we held in Delos Santos v. Robiso:

Contention of respondent:
 Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the
outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the
case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as
when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral  Respondent in his comment, argues that the allegations of complainant are purely hearsay. He
is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded stresses that complaint was instituted to harass him because he was the counsel of an
an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte  investigation may only be conducted when respondent opposing litigant against complainants corporation in an ejectment case entitled General
fails to appear despite reasonable notice.The administrative case is REMANDED to the Milling Corporation v. Cebu Autometic Motors, Inc. and Tirso Uytengsu III.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further proceedings. It is DIRECTED to act on this referral
with dispatch. IBP:

 On 9 August 2000, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation.
 Notices of hearing were sent to both parties between 11 January 2001 and 8 May 2001.
TIRSO UYTENGSU III, vs.ATTY. JOSEPH M. BADUEL, However, no actual hearings were conducted then due to the unavailability of either or both
  parties. Finally, on 26 June 2001, both parties appeared before the investigating
FACTS: commissioner. They were then directed to file their position papers and their respective replies
thereto.
Contention of complainant:  Investigating Commissioner Tyrone Cimafranca submitted his Report and Recommendation
dated 2 April 2002, recommending the dismissal of the case. The Commissioner characterized
the evidence against respondent as hearsay. Moreover, the Commissioner concluded that
 Complainant is one of the heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr. He and his co-heirs had a pending Kokseng had legal basis to execute the SPA in favor of a substitute, the records showing that
patent application. complainant and his co-heirs have constituted Kokseng as their attorney-in-fact for the purpose
 He alleges that sometime in December 1998 respondent requested him to sign a special of filing the homestead application.
power of attorney (SPA) authorizing Luis Wee (Wee) and/or Thomas Jacobo (Jacobo) to claim,  Thereafter, the IBP submitted their resolution dated 29 June 2002 approving and adopting the
demand, acknowledge and receive on his behalf the certificates of title from the Register of report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, dismissing the complaint
Deeds, General Santos City, DENR and from any government office or agency due to against respondent.
complainant and his co-heirs by reason of their application for Homestead Patentsituated in  Complainant filed his motion for reconsideration but was denied by the IBP in its resolution
Lagao, General Santos City. dated 19 October 2002 on the ground that the IBP no longer had jurisdiction to consider and
 Complainant refused to sign the SPA as he wanted to obtain the documents personally. resolve a matter already endorsed to this Court. This notwithstanding, the Court remanded the
Subsequently though, before he could get the title and other documents, complainant learned administrative case for immediate resolution of the motion for reconsideration on the merits to
that respondent caused to have the SPA signed by Connie U. Kokseng (Kokseng), the former the IBP in the Courts resolution dated 20 January 2003.
guardian of the heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr. Complainant maintains that the document signed
  On 27 February 2004, the IBP filed its resolution adopting and approving the investigating  Complainant himself submitted all the aforementioned letters clearly showing that respondent
commissioners report and recommendation denying complainants motion for reconsideration. was indeed the counsel or representative of complainant in the application for patent.
 Subsequently, on 1 July 2004, complainant filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the  The relation of attorney and client is in many respects one of agency and the general rules of
resolution of the IBP dated 27 February 2004. ordinary agency apply to such relation. The extent of authority of a lawyer, when acting on
 In his petition for review, complainant questions the findings of the IBP that complainants behalf of his client outside of court, is measured by the same test as that which is applied to an
allegations were based on hearsay and in finding that Kokseng had the authority to execute ordinary agent.
the special power of attorney in favor of Wee and/or Jacobo.  Such being the case, even respondent himself can acquire the certificates of title and other
documents without need of an SPA from complainant and his co-heirs.
 In addition, the Court agrees with the investigating commissioner that the allegations of
complainant constitutes mere hearsay evidence and may not be admissible in any proceeding.
ISSUE:
1. WON Atty. Baduel exceeded his authority as counsel when he asked Uytengsu to sign an SPA.
In Marcelo v. Javier, it was held that:
2. Requirement of due process – re – hearsay.
In all cases the determination whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely
suspended for a period involves the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, mindful
RULING: always of the fact that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary action and
should be resorted to only in cases where the lawyer demonstrates an attitude or
– WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case against respondent is hereby course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards. In cases
DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. of lighter offenses or of first delinquency, an order of suspension, which is correctional
in nature, should be inflicted. In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary
RATIO: proceedings, observance of due process, as in other judicial determination, is
 We dismiss the complaint. imperative along with presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently,
 At the outset, the Court finds that herein respondent was in fact the counsel in the homestead the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and
patent application of the heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr. This can be deduced from the letters establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.
dated 9 October 1991 and 15 January 1993, addressed to respondent by Victoria Villasor-
DUE PROCESS DISCUSSION:
Inong (Villasor-Inong), Accounts Liquidation Officer III of the Board of Liquidators of General
Santos City.
– Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an opportunity to
 In said letters, Villasor-Inong communicated to respondent the requirements for the grant of
the homestead patent to herein complainant and his co-heirs. From the tenor of the letters, it cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
would seem that respondent actively participated in representing complainant and his co-heirs
in their patent application for the subject land. Apparently, he stood as counsel for the heirs of charges against him until the contrary is proved. The case must be established by clear, convincing and
Tirso Uytengsu, Jr.
 With that ostensible representation and without any evidence to show that complainant or his satisfactory proof.
co-heirs withdrew such authority from respondent, the latter himself can even claim the
certificates of titles and other documents with regard to the homestead patents. – In the case at bar, other than the bare assertions of complainant, the evidence presented by
 It should be remembered that the first letter of Villasor-Inong addressed to respondent was on
9 October 1991. The addressees of the said letter were The Heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr., Rep. the latter does not suffice to tip the scale of justice to his side.
by Connie Uytengsu Kokseng, c/o Atty. Joseph Baduel.
 Complainant also presented a letter dated 23 September 1992 addressed to Villasor-Inong by – It should be stressed that in administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving
the general manager of the Board of Liquidators, directing the former to personally contact the
heirs of Tirso Uytengsu, Jr. to ascertain who among the persons giving conflicting directives as the allegations in the complaint. We cannot depend on mere conjectures and speculations. There must
to the course of the patent application is the true authorized representative of the heirs of Tirso
be substantial evidence to support respondents guilt.
Uytengsu, Jr.
 After four (4) months, respondent received from Villasor Inong another letter, dated 15 January
– Complainant averred that: (1) the SPA which the respondent asked him to sign was the same
1993, also attached to complainants position paper and petition for review, furnishing
respondent the requirements needed for the homestead patent application of complainant and document that Kokseng executed; (2) the document was notarized by a notary public from the office of
his co-heirs.
the respondent; and (3) the respondent was a witness in the SPA.
 – We need not dwell on the other factual issues of the case as it involves the presentation of
– As correctly observed by the investigating commissioner, all the aforementioned charges are concrete evidence that, sadly, complainant was not able to offer.

not based on his personal knowledge of the acts complained of but acquired from other sources.

Complainant charges that respondent committed an act meriting disbarment when the
latter caused to have a special power of attorney, which the former reused to sign
earlier, executed by Mrs. Connie Kokseng, former guardian of complainant and his A.C. No. 6656             May 4, 2006
co-heirs, authorizing certain individuals to secure the release from the Register of [Formerly CBD-98-591]
Deeds and other government offices in General Santos City, titles and other
documents pertaining to complainants and his co-heirs homestead application. BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, Complainant, 
However, this charge is not based on his own personal knowledge of the acts vs.
complained of but acquired from another source. In other words, what he offered in ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADA,* Respondent.
evidence to prove his charge is a second-hand version. Complainant identified his
source but failed to present any sworn statement or affidavit of said witness. In other CORONA, J.:
words, what he presented in evidence to prove his charge is hearsay.

– The hearsay rule provides that no assertion offered as testimony can be received unless it is or FACTS:
has been open to test by cross-examination or an opportunity for cross-examination, except as provided
otherwise by the rules on evidence, by rules of court, or by statute. The chief reasons for the rule are  Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada seeks reconsideration of our December 13,
that out-of-court statements amounting to hearsay are not made under oath and are not subject to 2005 resolution finding her guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of
cross-examination. Professional Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision of
– He did not submit to this Court or to the IBP any witness or documentary evidence to support the Court of Appeals and suspending her from the practice of law for two years.
his claim that respondent has indeed caused the execution of the disputed special power of attorney.
Furthermore, complainant in his reply to respondents comment stated that he has a credible witness in
 Respondent contends that, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
the person of Edward U. Kokseng, son of Kokseng, who has first hand knowledge of Koksengs signing
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the
of the SPA. However, he failed to present his witness before the IBP or submitted an affidavit of his
complaint against her was already barred by prescription. She also asserts that her
witness to affirm his allegations. Neither did he present any witness, whether expert nor otherwise, to
December 7, 1990 loan agreement with complainant complied with Rule 16.04 because the
attest to the genuiness of the signature of respondent which was allegedly found in the SPA, if that was
interest of complainant was fully protected.
his objective.
– This is not to say that complainant was not given any advice by the Court to make the proper
attachment to pleadings. As early as 21 July 1999, Atty. Erlinda C. Versoza, the then Deputy Clerk of RULING:
Court and Bar Confidant, sent word to complainant through a letter that complainants letter-complaint
must be verified and the supporting documents duly authenticated.  Respondent’s contentions have no merit.
– As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegationsei
incumbit probatio, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.
 Respondent anchors her defense of prescription on Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of
– It is also worth noting that complainants claim that he suffered damage and prejudice due to Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides:
the alleged unauthorized procurement of the certificates of titles and other documents was not
substantiated by independent evidence. Complainants silence as to the extent of the alleged damage  SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
and the lack of material evidence to show that his rights were impaired by the acts of respondent would prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the professional misconduct.
lead this Court to believe that complainant has suffered no or minimal injury, should there be any.
– As held in Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tan, no right of action is given where no injury is
sustained. A wrongful violation of a legal right is not a sufficient element of a cause of action unless it  However, as early as 1967, we have held that the defense of prescription does not lie in
has resulted in an injury causing loss or damage. There must be therefore, both wrongful violation and administrative proceedings against lawyers.1 And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos,2 we
damages. The one without the other is not sufficient. declared that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.
– Complainant made no statement on whether or not, at present, other persons who procured
the certificates of title and other documents are still in possession of the same. He also has not stated  If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the
the direct injury that was produced by the acts of respondent. very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
– With all the foregoing, the Court finds that complainant did not overcome the presumption of complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
innocence of respondent. exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty
 of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors): respondent violated
of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of his oath as a member of the Bar to do no falsehood and misrepresentations, recommended his
the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical
pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from  “IRR of the National Integrated Protected Areas System prohibited the illegal selling of rights
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial or possession of the areas occupied within the Bataan Natural Park… a fact supposed to be
Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x known by the respondent being a resident of Balanga, Bataan and was in the practice of his
profession also in said area”
 “Absolute Deed of Sale executed between the complainant Wilson Po Cham and the
 Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to respondent relative to the same subject property was not notarized which partook the nature
the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative of a private and not official document”
culpability of a lawyer….3 (emphasis supplied)  False representation evidenced by respondents failure to show permit from the government,
giving them rights over the property, which is no alienable and disposable
 The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative complaints against  “Respondent being extensively conversant and knowledgeable about the law took advantage
lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control the of his versatility in the practice of law and committed misrepresentations that he and his co-
practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated power to entertain owners have irrevocable rights, interests and possession over the subject property”
administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided by the doctrines and
ISSUE: WON Pizarro violated Rule 7.03 of the CPR
principles laid down by this Court.
HELD: Yes
 Regrettably, Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which
“[A] member should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and
provides for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative complaints against
trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession” (Rule 7.03: nor
lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of this Court. It should therefore be struck down shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
profession)

 Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense, respondent raised it only at this “The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
late stage. We presume she was familiar with that rule yet she failed to invoke it at the wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the
earliest opportunity. Instead she opted to insist on her innocence. privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or
suspension.”
 On the other ground raised by respondent, we have sufficiently discussed the implications of “Respondent must thus be faulted for fraudulently inducing complainant to purchase, for P3,372,533.00,
her loan agreement with complainant in relation to Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional non-existent irrevocable rights, interest and participation over an inalienable property.”
Responsibility in our December 13, 2005 resolution. Considering the fiduciary character of
respondent’s relationship with complainant, the nature of their agreement and complainant’s “As important as it is that an attorney be competent to deal with the oftentimes intricate matters which
lack of independent advice when she entered into it, there is neither sufficient ground nor may be intrusted to him, it is infinitely more so that he be upright and trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is not
compelling reason to reconsider our earlier resolution. easy to limit membership in the profession to those who satisfy the standard of test of fitness. But scant
progress in that direction can be hoped for if, in the determination of the qualification of professional
 WHEREFORE, respondent’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. fitness, non-professional dishonor and dishonesty in whatsoever path of life is to be
ignored. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty
and dishonor in other relations. x x x misconduct, indicative of moral unfitness for the profession,
 Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies dismission as well as exclusion from the bar.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby declared null and void.
(Mr. Chief Justice Prentice in In Re Disbarment of Peck)”

 Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
the Bar Confidant for their information and guidance. One (1) Year and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will merit a more
severe penalty.
 SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 81093 March 6, 1990

PIZARRO, supra
 PORAC TRUCKING, INC., petitioner,   “As an officer of the court, Atty Macalino should have known better than to appear in a case on
vs. behalf of another at the mere prodding of his client”
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Fifteenth Division), HON. EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, In  “The unsolicited appearance of Atty Macalino, in the absence of a client-lawyer relationship is
his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Macabebe, Pampanga (Branch LV) and unbecoming of a member of the bar”
EMERENCIANA GUEVARRA, respondents.

Porac Trucking Corp v CA A.M. No. L-840             June 30, 1969

Gist: Atty Macalino filed a motion on behalf of Porac Trucking for a complaint for damages against the JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO, CARLOS UY, JR., and, FRANCISCO R. ACHACOSO, petitioners, 
company. However, he is only the counsel of PT’s insurer, Rico General Insurance, and his act was vs.
without PT’s authority. NORBERTO QUISUMBING, respondent.

FACTS:
FACTS:
 The petition for review by certiorari stemmed from a complaint for damages filed against herein
 Petitioners Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr. and Francisco R. Achacoso seek either the
petitioner Porac Trucking, one of its trucks having been involved in a collision incident with a
disbarment or the suspension of respondent Attorney Norberto Quisumbing, upon the ground
mini Isuzu cargo truck (owned by Emerenciana Guevarra)
that he filed Civil Case No. 73668 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as counsel for the
 Porac Trucking failed to answer the complaint, and was later declared in default1. Atty Rodolfo plaintiffs therein, including among them one L. Garcia Pastor, who had not, in fact, authorized
Macalino filed a “Motion for Leave to File Answer beyond Reglementary Period,” with the respondent to institute said action on his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf.
supposed answer of Porac Trucking. Atty Macalino’s appearance was taken by the court as
PT’s voluntary submission to its jurisdiction  In his answer thereto, respondent alleged that he filed the complaint in said case No. 73668 at
 The lower court ruled in favor of Gueverra, and a writ of execution was subsequently issued. the request of one of the plaintiffs therein, namely, Julio Muñoz, who claimed to have authority
Porac Trucking filed a “Petition for Relief from Judgement with Prayer for Restraining Order to act on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor in connection therewith. In support of this allegation,
and Preliminary Injunction” through its in-house counsel (not Atty Macalino). The same was respondent submitted a photostatic copy of an affidavit of said Muñoz, dated July 12, 1968,
dismissed by the court. which had allegedly been submitted in Civil Case No. 73091 of the Court of First Instance of
 PT appealed, contending that the defect in the service of the summons (see footnote) was not Manila. Subsequently, or on December 4, 1968, respondent filed a "manifestation" annexing
cured by Atty Macalino’s unauthorized appearance thereto another affidavit of Muñoz, made in Barcelona, Spain, on November 11, 1968, in
 Judgement was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but the SC ordered that it be remanded to further support of said allegation. Thereafter, petitioners filed their reply, which was the object
the trial court of a rejoinder on the part of respondent. The aforementioned pleadings and the annexes
thereto sufficiently establish the facts necessary for the determination of this administrative
case.
ISSUE: WON Atty Macalino violated the rule against willful appearance as attorney for any party,
without authority
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice of law
RULING: Yes. “The presiding judge of the court a quo is…ordered to undertake an investigation”
RULING: WHEREFORE, the complaint herein is hereby dismissed
 Atty Rodolfo Macalino is in fact the lawyer of Rico General Insurance Corporation, the insurer
of Porac Trucking,2 the insurance company having worked for a settlement of the claim with Ratio:
the insurer of Guevarra  Although Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent herein to file said case on
his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf, as one of the plaintiffs therein, respondent had no reason to doubt
 “Certainly, the lawyer of the insurance company did not ipso facto become the lawyer for the
the veracity of the information furnished by Muñoz regarding his power to grant such authority,
insured in all subsequent litigations arising from the accident” despite instructions from the
in representation of Garcia Pastor. Indeed, the latter seemingly claims to have returned his
manager (Edgardo Simon) of the insurance company. Further, Simon also stated under oath shares in Capital to Muñoz, thus impliedly admitting that he (Garcia Pastor) held the shares on
he did not inform Porac Trucking about assigning Atty Macalino to the case; PT also did not behalf of Muñoz. At any rate, Muñoz knew nothing about said alleged return, he being in
hire Atty Macalino for representation Japan, at the time of the filing of Case No. 73668, whereas Garcia Pastor was then in
Barcelona. Moreover, the records of Capital were in the possession of petitioners herein, and
respondent felt that the Complaint in Case No. 73668 should be filed without delay, owing to
the urgency of the relief prayed for.
1
 In other words, when respondent's services were engaged in connection with said case,
2 Muñoz informed him that he (Muñoz) was the controlling stockholder of Capital and that Garcia
 Pastor was his alter ego in its board of directors. Accordingly, Muñoz authorized respondent to An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears,
file the action, not only in his (Muñoz) name, but, also, in that of Garcia Pastor. Under the and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client
circumstances, it is clear that respondent has not committed any act of malpractice. In fact, (Sec. 21, Rule 138, Rules of Court). The fact that private respondents had not personally
Garcia Pastor has not complained against respondent for having acted as he did. The present appeared in the hearings of Case TM-223 in the trial court is immaterial. The filing of the answer
administrative proceeding has been instituted, not by Garcia Pastor, but by the defendants by and appearance of Atty. Danilo Pine in their behalf are sufficient to give private respondents
in the aforementioned civil case. standing in court. It is hard to believe that a counsel who has no personal interest in the case
would fight for and defend a case with persistence and vigor if he had not been authorized or
employed by the party concerned. It is obvious that since the appellate court had decided
adversely against private respondents in their petition for certiorari, the latter filed the
annulment suit for a second chance at preventing petitioners from enforcing the decision
G.R. No. L-35830 July 24, 1990 rendered by the Cavite court in favor of the latter.

FORTUNATA MERCADO, BASILIA CUEVAS MERCADO, SOTERA MERCADO and TRINIDAD

MERCADO, petitioners, 
vs.
Hon. ALBERTO Q. UBAY as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch RENATO M. MALIGAYA, A.C. No. 6198
XXXII, LUCINA SAMONTE and TRINIDAD M. SAMONTE, respondents. Complainant,

ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR.,

FACTS: Respondent.

 On May 18, 1966, petitioners filed an action for partition with the Court of First Instance of
Cavite, Branch I, docketed as Civil Case No. TM-223, against Antonio, Ely and respondents FACTS:
Lucina and Trinidad, all surnamed Samonte and who are brothers and sisters.
 On June 27, 1966, the defendants were served with a copy of the complaint and  Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate General's Service is before us on a
summons thru their co-defendant Antonio Samonte who acknowledged receipt thereof. charge of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court during a hearing of
 On July 11, 1966, all the defendants in the above-numbered case, thru counsel, Atty. Civil Case.
Danilo Pine, filed their answer to the complaint. Later, on January 4,1967, the said
 The case was an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and
defendants, thru the same counsel, filed their amended answer.
retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers for
 On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Cavite (now RTC) rendered judgment in
whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point during the hearing of the case, Atty.
favor of the petitioners and against all the defendants in the civil case, including private
Doronilla said:
respondents. Since no appeal was made by any of the defendants from the decision of
o And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he [complainant
the trial court, the same became final and executory and the court issued the
Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We had an agreement that if
corresponding writ of execution.
we withdraw the case against him, he will also withdraw all the cases. So, with
 However, before the writ could be carried out by the provincial sheriff, all the
that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension.
defendants, thru the same counsel, Atty. Danilo Pine, filed a petition for certiorari and
 Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge Reynaldo B. Daway asked a
mandamus with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the writ of execution issued by
the trial court in Cavite in Case No. TM-223. On July 9, 1971, the Court of Appeals dismissed number of clarificatory questions and ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his statements in writing
the petition for lack of merit. and "file the appropriate pleading." Weeks passed but Atty. Doronilla submitted no such
 On May 27, 1972, respondent Lucina Samonte and Trinidad Samonte brought an action pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now RTC) docketed as Case No.   Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the IBP charging him with "misleading the
C-2442, for the annulment of the final judgment rendered by the trial court in Cavite in court through misrepresentation of facts resulting [in] obstruction of justice". Complainant
Case No. TM-223, alleging the following matters: that they did not authorize anyone swore before the investigating commissioner that he had never entered into any agreement to
including Atty. Danilo Pine to file an answer in their behalf as defendants in Case No. TM withdraw his lawsuits.
223, and that the filing of the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the  Atty. Doronilla, who took up the larger part of two hearings to present evidence and explain his
writ of execution in the same case was without their knowledge and participation. side, admitted several times that there was, in fact, no such agreement. e explained in his
memorandum that his main concern was "to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms
ISSUE: WON Atty Danilo Pine’s appearance was without authority without going to trial" and insisted that there was no proof of his having violated the CPR or the
lawyer's oath. He pointed out, in addition, that his false statement (or, as he put it, his "alleged
RULING: Such allegation is devoid of merit. acts of falsity") had no effect on the continuance of the case and therefore caused no actual
prejudice to complainant.
  IBP – guilty of purposely stating falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR; A.C. No. 3731             September 7, 2007
suspension from government military service as legal officer for 3 months
 IBP Board of Governors – adopted the findings of IBP Commissioners MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN, complainant, 
vs.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla is guilty of violating the Canon? ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR, respondent.
RULING: Yes.
Sebastian vs. Bajar, 532 SCRA 435 , September 07, 2007
Canon 10 – Observe Candor, Fairness and Good Faith
 There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers of the
court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor. The common caricature that lawyers by and large do not
feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly should not become a common reality. To
FACTS:
this end, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility state:
o CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH TO THE  Atty. Bajar is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of DAR who represented
COURT. Fernando Tanlioco in numerous cases which raised the same issues. Tanlioco is an
o Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in agricultural lessee of a land owned by Manuel Sebastian’s wife and sister-in-law (landowners).
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The landowners filed an ejectment case against Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of
 By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. the land use from agricultural to residential. The RTC rendered judgement ordering Tanlioco’s
Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated the ejectment subject to the payment of disturbance compensation. The RTC’s judgement was
lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court," of which Canon 10 affirmed by the CA and SC.
and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer's duty to "never seek to  Atty. Bajar, filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion order. The
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." RTC dismissed the complaint due to res judicata and lack of cause of action. She again filed a
 Atty. Doronilla's unethical conduct was compounded, moreover, by his obstinate refusal to case for Maintenance of Possession with the DAR Adjudication Board. The case raised the
acknowledge the impropriety of what he had done. same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation. Atty. Bajar has violated 10.03 of
The Code of Professional Responsibility since she misused the rules of procedure Through
 From the very beginning of this administrative case, Atty. Doronilla maintained the untenable
forum shopping to obstruct the administration of justice.
position that he had done nothing wrong in the hearing. He persisted in doing so even after
having admitted that he had, in that hearing, spoken of an agreement that did not in truth exist.  Sebastian now filed an administrative case with the SC for disbarment against Bajar for
Rather than express remorse for that regrettable incident, Atty. Doronilla resorted to an ill- violation of Rule10.03
conceived attempt to evade responsibility, professing that the falsehood had not been meant  of the Code of Professional Responsibility since she misused the rules of procedure through
for the information of Judge Daway but only as "a sort of question" to complainant regarding a forum-shopping toobstruct the administration of justice. Bajar filed a comment with the court
"pending proposal" to settle the case. alleging (1) that Sebastian had
 nopersonality to file a complaint because he was not the real party in interest and (2) that she
 There is in his favor a presumption of good faith which keeps us from treating the only filed the cases
incongruity of his proffered excuse as an indication of mendacity. Besides, in the light of his  to avail ofall the legal remedies attributed by the law to her client. Sebastian submitted a reply
avowal that his only aim was "to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms without alleging that Bajar did not confrontthe issue on disbarment but merely passed upon the issues
going to trial," it is not unreasonable to assume that what he really meant to say was that he which were already passed upon in the cases decided above.(Not Really Important) The SC
had intended the misrepresentation as a gambit to get the proposed agreement on the table, ordered Bajar to file a Rejoinder, but Bajar only did so a year after because the Court ordered
as it were. But even if that had been so, it would have been no justification for speaking falsely the NBI to arrest and detain her. The SC forwarded the case with the IBP for comment and the
in court. There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among disputants that, in any IBP recommended that Bajar be suspended indefinitely because she clearly violated the rule
way, makes it necessary under any circumstances for counsel to state as a fact that which is
against forum
not true. A lawyer's duty to the court to employ only such means as are consistent with
shoppingfor purposes of delay. The Supreme Court noted the IBP”s recommendation and the 
truth and honor forbids recourse to such a tactic. Thus, even as we give Atty. Doronilla the
Court Administration issued a circularregarding the notation. However, the IBP found out that
benefit of the doubt and accept as true his avowed objective of getting the parties to settle the
case amicably, we must call him to account for resorting to falsehood as a means to that end. despite their recommendation Bajar still performed her duties as a lawyer. The IBP
recommended her disbarment.
Decision – suspension from the practice of law for 2 months (disagree with the IBP; cannot
include suspension from government service as Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court speak ISSUE:
only of suspension from law)
WON, Atty. Bajar was guilty in violating Rule 10.3 regarding the misuse of rules of procedures to
obstruct the administration of justice and was guilty of disobedience to SC for not complying orders.
HELD: Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 Yes, Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis or a class of its own. In a
disbarment proceeding, the complainant need not be a party-in WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that Atty.
interest because the real party in interest is the public. The complainant is merely an informant Ceasar G. Batuegas and Atty. Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the practice of
of the wrongdoing of the lawyer. The fact that she merely availed of all the legal remedies their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for a period of six (6) months from receipt
“available” to her client is not an excuse. hereof. The complaint against Atty. Franklin Q. Susa, upon the other hand, is hereby recommended
 While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of dismissed for lack of merit.
their client’s rights,
The foregoing Report and Recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP-
 They should not forget that they are first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert Commission on Bar Discipline
every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Bajar’s act of filing
cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling, affirmed by the Court of ISSUE: WON BAtuegas and Nazareno violated canon 10.01
Appeals and the Supreme Court, is beyond the bounds of the law. The SC”s orders to submit a
reply and a rejoinder are not mere requests. A Court’s Resolution is not to be construed as a HELD:
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Bajar’s
disobedience to these orders shows her disrespect for the Court. Bajar was suspended from  We agree with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
the practice of law for 3 years with stern warning. Commissioner. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood.
 A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to
correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice
[A.C. No. 5379. May 9, 2003]
and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only
WALTER T. YOUNG, complainant, vs. CEASAR G. BATUEGAS, MIGUELITO NAZARENO V. complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the
LLANTINO and FRANKLIN Q. SUSA, respondents. solemn duty to defend his clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense
of his clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor
 Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from them
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it
FACTS: found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth
by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under
 Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby
G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for allegedly committing contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a
deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyers oath contemptuous conduct that we strongly condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted
to deception.
 Respondents Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused, filed a Manifestation with Motion
 Respondents contend that their allegation of the accused detention was merely a statement of
for Bail, alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. As
an ultimate fact which still had to be proved by evidence at the hearing of the Motion. That they
such, he is now under detention. Upon personal verification with the National Bureau of
were able to show that their client was already under the custody of the NBI at the hearing held
Investigation (NBI) where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant learned that he on December 15, 2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that the allegation that the
surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by accused was in the custody of the NBI on December 13, 2000 was false.
Atty. Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI.  WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito
 Respondents filed their respective comments, declaring that on December 13, 2000, upon Nazareno V. Llantino are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly, they
learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client, they filed the Manifestation with are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a
Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then they immediately fetched the accused in Cavite and repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at
the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the certificate of detention indicated that the accused
surrendered on December 14, 2000. They argued that there was neither unethical conduct nor
falsehood in the subject pleading as their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained
at the NBI.
 A.C. No. 7054               December 4, 2009 of judgment and a petition for declaratory relief to contest the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC
CONRADO QUE, Complainant, vs. were all parts of his legal strategy to protect the interests of his clients.
ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. Respondent.  The respondent additionally claimed that the disbarment case was filed because the complainant’s
counsel, Atty. Cesar P. Uy (Atty. Uy), had an axe to grind against him.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR  Respondent posited in his pleadings7 before the IBP that the present complaint violated the rule on
TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
forum shopping considering that the subject cases were also the ones on which a complaint was
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
filed against him in CBD Case No. 03-1099 filed by Atty. Uy before the IBP Committee on Bar
Discipline.
FACTS:
 In a complaint for disbarment,1 Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. ISSUE:
(respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP WoN Atty. Revilla can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct,
Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the and the penalty these transgressions should carry
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
o The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the HELD:
MeTC and RTC knowing fully-well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM Resolution No. XVII-2005-164 dated
detainer case. The respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant’s and his December 17, 2005 and Resolution No. XVII-2008-657 dated December 11, 2008 of the Board of
siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case; Governors of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline insofar as respondent Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.
o The respondent’s commission of forum-shopping is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01
o The respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of
the petition for annulment of judgment by fabricating an imaginary order issued by the Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However,
presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the we modify the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the respondent should be DISBARRED from the
respondents in the said case. The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to practice of law.
cover up his lack of preparation; the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all
squatters) in supporting the above falsehood. RATIO:
o The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the
Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers
good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous
counsel of the respondent’s clients.
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of judgment, the respondent
o The respondent’s deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court in the
attacked (as quoted above) the name and reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of
petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased.
deliberate neglect, corrupt motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse party. He resorted
o The respondent’s willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for annulment of
to falsities and attributed acts to Atty. Catolico and to the presiding judge, all of which were untrue.
title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
We find it significant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he came upon his accusation
RESPONDENT:
against Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his own admission, only participated in the cases previously
 The respondent declared that he is a member of the Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) assigned to Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the same time, the respondent’s petition for annulment
that handles pro bono cases for the underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those in of judgment also represented that no second motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest
the marginalized sector in Metro Manila. the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the respondent believed
 He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC members. One of these cases the said decisions were null and void ab initio.
was the unlawful detainer case handled by the late Atty. Catolico where the complainant and his
siblings were the plaintiffs and the respondent’s present clients were the defendants. Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been less than fair in his professional
 The respondent professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions complained of; relationship with Atty. Catolico and is thus liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his clients in their property. Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to "conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor
 The respondent asserted that these petitions were all based on valid grounds – the lack of toward his professional colleagues." He was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico
jurisdiction of the MeTC and the RTC over the underlying unlawful detainer case, the extrinsic fraud without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty. Catolico, who is now dead and
committed by the late Atty. Catolico, and the extrinsic fraud committed by the complainant and his unable to defend himself.
family against his clients;
 he discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to the complainant and his Given the respondent’s multiple violations, his past record as previously discussed, and the nature of
family but is a forest land. The respondent also asserted that his resort to a petition for annulment these violations which shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the
orderly administration of justice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to nnor engage in any business or occupation, orhold office, elective or appointive, while indetention. This i
disbar the respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant role in the s a necessary consequence ofarrest and detention.He was ordered to be detained in Provincial Jailof A
administration of justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal ntique.
profession serves. Not even his ardor and overzealousness in defending the interests of his client can
save him. Such traits at the expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and
the orderly administration of justice, this Court cannot accept nor tolerate.
A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000
fli vs Pangulayan
Additionally, disbarment is merited because this is not the respondent’s first ethical infraction of the
same nature. FACTS:

 Nine students of AMA Computer College (AMACC) was expelled for having apparently caused
to be published some objectionable features or articles in paper
People of the Phil vs. Hon. Bonifacio Sanz Maceda  The denial of the appeal to AMACC President lead to the filing of an action for issuance of Writ
of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for Damages against the said school.
FACTS:
 However, while the civil case was pending, Re-Admission Agreements were executed and/or
This case stems from denial by the SC ofthe People’s motion seeking reconsideration ofits August 13, 1 in behalf of some expelled students.
990 decision holding thatrespondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Macedacommitted no grave abuse of discre  Followed by the execution of the letters of apology and the Re-Admission Agreements, a
tion inissuing the order of August 8, 1989 givingcustody over private respondent Avelino T.Javellana to t Manifesation was filed with the trial court where the civil case was pending by Atty. Regina
he Clerk of Court of the AntiqueRTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during thependency of Criminal Cas Balmores of the Pangulayan Associate Law Office for defendant AMACC.
es Nos. 3350-3355. Atthat time, sufficient reason was shown whyJavellana should not be detained at th  Thereafter, the RTC dismissed the civil case.
e AntiqueProvincial Jail. The trial courtÕs order specificallyprovided for private respondentÕs detention   Atty. Manuel Camacho, complainant and the then hired counsel of some expelled students,
at theresidence of Atty. del Rosario. However, privaterespondent was not to be allowed liberty to roama filed a complaint against the lawyers of Pangulayan and Associate Law Offices, the counsel for
round but was to be held as detention prisonerin said residence. It was however found that theorder wa AMACC. He charged that respondents procured and effected on separate occasions, without
s not strictly complied with becauseJavellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He  his knowledge, the Re-Admission Agreements with 4 of his clients. This resulted to the
went about his normalactivities as if he were a free man, includingengaging in the practice of law. students waiving all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, principal defendant
of the aforementioned case, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings
 ISSUE:  Whether of Not Atty. Javellana , aconvict, is allowed to practice law. against the said school. Camacho averred that such action was unbecoming of any member of
the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension.
RULING:
 Attorney Pangulayan denied the allegation and stated that not one of his co-respondents had
Private respondent Javellana has beenarrested based on the filing of criminal casesagainst him. By suc taken part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the Re-Admission
h arrest, he is deemed to beunder the custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosa Agreements, further, they were no longer connected at the time with the law office. The Re-
rio the custody ofprivate respondent Javellana with the obligationÒto hold and detainÓ him in Atty. del  Admission Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of the case and were
RosarioÕsresidence in his official capacity as the clerk ofcourt of the regional trial court. Hence, when A executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case involving
tty. del Rosario was appointed judge, heceased to be the personal custodian of accusedJavellana and t nine students of AMACC who were expelled. It was only executed to settle the administrative
he succeeding clerk of court mustbe deemed the custodian under the sameundertaking. case involving the 9 students.

  IBP’s recommendation – Atty. Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of law for SIX
(6) MONTHS for being remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents
Regarding his continued practice of law, as adetention prisoner private respondent Javellanais not allow for they did not take part in the negotiation of the case
ed to practice his profession as anecessary consequence of his status as adetention prisoner. The trial 
court’s order wasclear that private respondent "is not to beallowed liberty to roam around but is to be he ISSUE: WON they violated the CPR?
ldas a detention prisoner." The prohibition topractice law referred not only to Criminal CaseNo. 4262, bu
RULING: Yes. When the letters of apology and Re-ad Agreements were formalized, Camacho was the
t to all other cases as well, except incases where private respondent would appear incourt to defend hi
then retained counsel of the students. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although
mself. As a matter of law, when a person indicted for anoffense is arrested, he is deemed placed undert
aware, respondent atty. proceeded to negotiate with them and their parents without communicating the
he custody of the law. He is placed in actualrestraint of liberty in jail so that he may be boundto answer f
matter to their lawyer (Camacho). This failure, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable
or the commission of the offense. Hemust be detained in jail during the pendency ofthe case against hi
violation of the Canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.
m, unless he is authorized bythe court to be released on bail or onrecognizance. Let it be stressed that 
Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Br.
all prisonerswhether under preventive detention or servingfinal sentence can not practice their professio
The allegation that the context of the Re-ad Agreements centers only on the admin aspect of the
controversy is belied by the Manifestation executed which explicitly provides: RATIO:
 Although Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent herein to file said case on
1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf, as one of the plaintiffs therein, respondent had no reason to doubt
parents/guardian already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President, the veracity of the information furnished by Muñoz regarding his power to grant such authority,
AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE in representation of Garcia Pastor. Indeed, the latter seemingly claims to have returned his
MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all civil, shares in Capital to Muñoz, thus impliedly admitting that he (Garcia Pastor) held the shares on
criminal and administrative proceedings which they may have against the AMACC behalf of Muñoz. At any rate, Muñoz knew nothing about said alleged return, he being in
arising from their previous dismissal. Japan, at the time of the filing of Case No. 73668, whereas Garcia Pastor was then in
Barcelona. Moreover, the records of Capital were in the possession of petitioners herein, and
x x x           x x x          x x x respondent felt that the Complaint in Case No. 73668 should be filed without delay, owing to
the urgency of the relief prayed for.
3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
Q-97-30549 will by filed them.  In other words, when respondent's services were engaged in connection with said case,
Muñoz informed him that he (Muñoz) was the controlling stockholder of Capital and that Garcia
Decision – Court concur with the IBP in their findings; nevertheless, the recommended six-month Pastor was his alter ego in its board of directors. Accordingly, Muñoz authorized respondent to
suspension would be too harsh given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent. Thus, Atty. file the action, not only in his (Muñoz) name, but, also, in that of Garcia Pastor. Under the
Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED for a period of 3 MONTHS. The case circumstances, it is clear that respondent has not committed any act of malpractice. In fact,
against the other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Garcia Pastor has not complained against respondent for having acted as he did. The present
administrative proceeding has been instituted, not by Garcia Pastor, but by the defendants in
the aforementioned civil case.

JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO, CARLOS UY, JR., and, FRANCISCO R. ACHACOSO, petitioners, 

vs.
NORBERTO QUISUMBING, respondent.

PLUS BUILDERS VS. REVILLA

FACTS:  
FACTS:
 Petitioners Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr. and Francisco R. Achacoso seek either the  On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
disbarment or the suspension of respondent Attorney Norberto Quisumbing, upon the ground (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers
that he filed Civil Case No. 73668 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as counsel for the Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez
plaintiffs therein, including among them one L. Garcia Pastor, who had not, in fact, authorized Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra,
respondent to institute said action on his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf. who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that
respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the
 In his answer thereto, respondent alleged that he filed the complaint in said case No. 73668 at subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court
the request of one of the plaintiffs therein, namely, Julio Muñoz, who claimed to have authority sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his clients lost cause,
to act on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor in connection therewith. In support of this allegation, respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court
respondent submitted a photostatic copy of an affidavit of said Muñoz, dated July 12, 1968, processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of
which had allegedly been submitted in Civil Case No. 73091 of the Court of First Instance of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to
Manila. Subsequently, or on December 4, 1968, respondent filed a "manifestation" annexing quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to
thereto another affidavit of Muñoz, made in Barcelona, Spain, on November 11, 1968, in engage in the unauthorized practice of law holding themselves out as his
further support of said allegation. Thereafter, petitioners filed their reply, which was the object partners/associates in the law firm.
of a rejoinder on the part of respondent. The aforementioned pleadings and the annexes
thereto sufficiently establish the facts necessary for the determination of this administrative  He was suspended for two years.
case.
 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the two year penalty to be
reduced to reprimand for the sake of his family and poor clients he was defending. 
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice of law
RESPONDENT CONTENTION: he did not commit the acts complained of. The courses of action he
RULING: WHEREFORE, the complaint herein is hereby dismissed
took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999,
but were based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation lawyer for more than 20 We are not unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less
years and on the facts given to him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of fortunate. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather
action he took were valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests of commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3]He stresses that he was not the original lawyer in this case. The an officer of the court. We stress what we have stated in our decision that, in support of the
lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the
felt that their former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well, refused to listen to them and, authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth
in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent candidly relied on what the and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives
tenants/farmers told him in the course of his interview. They maintained that they had been to his case.[14] Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist
in open, adverse, continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly
than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet title was resorted to in order to determine the rights delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
[15]
of his clients respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely exhausted all possible
remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled under the law, considering that his
clients were subjected to harassment and threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the o Certainly, violations of these canons cannot be countenanced, as respondent must
complainant.[4] He posits that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a good have realized with the sanction he received from this Court. However, the Court also
father would be protective of his own family, [5] and that his services to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing
al  were almost pro bono.[6] the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the
  respondents length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and
The findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP): feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which
 He was counsel of Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan have varying significance in the Courts determination of the imposable
Development Cooperative (KDC).He signed the retainer agreement with Atty. Dominador to penalty. Thus, after a careful consideration of herein respondents motion for
formalize their lawyer-client relationship, and the complainants were fully aware of such reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his misfeasance, we are
arrangement.[7] persuaded to extend a degree of leniency towards him.[16] We find the suspension
of six (6) months from the practice of law sufficient in this case
 
 Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the courses of
 
action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind
consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He reiterates that he does not deserve the
penalty of two years suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in Tan vs. BALAJADIA,
character, honesty, and probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar for more than 20
years, served as former president of the IBP Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of FACTS:
IBP Quezon City handling detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a
member of the Couples for Christ, and has had strict training in the law school he  This is a petition for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao
graduated from and the law offices he worked with. [8] He is the sole breadwinner in the Pagayokan against respondent Benedicto Balajadia.
family with a wife who is jobless, four (4) children who are in school, a mother who is  Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against them with the
bedridden and a sick sister to support. The familys only source of income is
Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority, grave coercion and
respondents private practice of law, a work he has been engaged in for more than
twenty-five (25) years up to the present.[9] violation of city tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners
   from respondent.
HELD:  In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a practicing
lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building,
 It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention, Session Road, Baguio City.[2] However, certifications issued by the Office of the Bar
diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether Confidant[3] and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[4] showed that respondent has
he accepts it for a fee or for free.[11] A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires never been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent is
but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is
liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to
succeed.[12]   In his Comment,[5] respondent avers that the allegation in paragraph 5 of the complaint-
affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of
 In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty.
the respondents acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and Aquinos complaint-affidavit.
misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated.
  Respondent claims that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the same secretary; one for  Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was the
the May 5, 2005 parking incident result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish intent as to make him liable for indirect
 Respondent insists that the complaint-affidavit regarding the 1:00 oclock parking contempt.
incident correctly alleged that he is a businessman with office address at Room B-204,  In the cases where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law, the party
2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City. was guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf of his client;[12]
 However, the complaint-affidavit regarding the 10:00 oclock parking incident, which is appearing before court hearings as an attorney;[13] manifesting before the court that he
the subject of the instant petition, erroneously referred to him as a practicing lawyer will practice law despite being previously denied admission to the bar;[14] or
because Atty. Aquinos secretary copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquinos deliberately attempting to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney through
complaint-affidavit circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so.[15]
 Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquinos secretary, executed an affidavit[8] admitting the mistake in the  In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or
preparation of the complaint-affidavit. that he intended to practice law. Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt
considering his lack of intent to illegally practice law.
ISSUE:

 The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent is liable for indirect contempt. (no)

RULING:
A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Respondent is WARNED to be more careful and
circumspect in his future actions. JULIO ZETA, complainant, vs.FELICISIMO MALINAO, respondent.
 Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
FACTS:
o Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge
in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment  Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court interpreter of the Court of First
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or Instance of Catbalogan, Samar charging as follows:
counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt: “l — ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — MR. Malinao has been appearing in the
 (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such municipal court of this town for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. Reliable
information also says he has been appearing in the municipal courts of Daram, Zumarraga,
without authority;
Talalora and even Sta. Rita. He is not authorized to do so we believe. He makes it his means
 In several cases,[10] we have ruled that the unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an of livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He competes with attorneys but does not pay
attorney and acting as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable anything. We believe that his doing so should be stopped for a good government. These facts
by fine or imprisonment or both. can be checked with records of those municipal courts.”
 The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court is in the nature of criminal contempt and the acts are punished because they are an  Being employed in the Court of First Instance
affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of
justice. In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that intent is a
necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the evidence makes it clear that he ISSUE : WON Malinao violated canon 9
intended to commit it
 In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondents claim that he never intended HELD:
to project himself as a lawyer to the public.  Inspite of diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the complainant, Julio Zeta, who is
 It was a clear inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The affidavit of Liza said to be a resident of Zumarraga, Samar the same had failed because the said Julio Zeta
Laconsay attesting to the circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the appears to be a fictitious person
complaint-affidavit conforms to the documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these  Inspite of the failure of the complainant to appear in the investigation in connection with his
circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondents complaint-affidavit was, complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, the Court nevertheless proceeded to investigate the
indeed, the result of inadvertence. case against him by calling Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of
Zumarraga, Samar and Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar.
 Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, declared that according to his docket books the ATTY BARANDON VS ATTY FERRER
respondent appeared as counsel for Vicente Baculanlan in criminal case No. 1247 in the
Municipal Court of Sta. Rita, Samar, for grave threats and in criminal case No. 1249 for the FACTS:
same accused and Romulo Villagracia for illegal possession of firearm on August 5, 1960 and
 On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit
on September 17, 1970.
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the
 Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent appeared as counsel in
disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary
civil case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, Samar, entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor
action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion
Payao, et al., for forcible entry on December 15, 1962, January 26, 1963, February 18, 1963
to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty.
and on March 1, 1963.
Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a
 Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27, 1969, the respondent appeared as counsel notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.
for the defendant in civil case No. 318 of the Municipal Court of Zumarraga entitled Restituto
 On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start
Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry and again on June 17, 1970 in the same case.
of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, “Laban kung
 We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the conclusions of fact of the Investigator laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na
to be amply supported by the evidence, particularly the documents consisting of public records abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo
and the declarations of the judges before whom respondent had appeared. It is clear to Us that sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a
respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in various municipal courts without prior hearing.
permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations, falsified his time
 The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical
record of service by making it appear therein that he was present in his office on occasions
act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP
when in fact he was in the municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of
Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal
the bar, which, furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law. We, therefore, adopt the above
cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him.
findings of fact of the Investigator.
 On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD
 The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for defendants' cause was gratuitous as
submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer.
they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in
The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s
the locality" cannot, even if true
violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to
 We find no alternative than to separate him from the service, with the admonition that he desist Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite
from appearing in any court or investigative body wherein Only members of the bar are the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
allowed to practice. was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the
 WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his position threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and
as interpreter in the Court of First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar with prejudice to litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed
reemployment in the judicial branch of the government. Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but
reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

Lawyer’s Defense:

Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses:

(1) At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks against Atty. Barandon, the MTC
Daet was already in session. It was improbable that the court did not take steps to stop, admonish, or
cite Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.

(2) Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that Atty. Ferrer was drunk on
December 19, 2000 and that he degraded the law profession. The latter had received various citations
that speak well of his character.

Court’s Ruling:
 The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.
 Evidently, Atty. Ferrer uttered the statement with intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and
discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and litigants waiting for
the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.
The Court cannot countenance it.
 Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified
and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. [17]
 Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the
legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral
righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation.
 All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably
and fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct
in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and
the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
Consequently, the penalty of suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for one year from the
practice of law is deemed just and proper.