Aguirre v. Rana knowledge, training and experience.

To
engage in the practice of law is to perform acts
which are usually performed by members of
the legal profession. Generally, to practice law
Facts: is to render any kind of service which requires
the use of legal knowledge or skill.
 Rana was among those who passed the 2000
Bar Examinations. before the scheduled mass  The right to practice law is not a natural or
oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission limited to persons of good moral character
to the Bar. with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal
 The Court allowed respondent to take his knowledge, educational attainment, and even
oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the
the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll court. A bar candidate does not acquire the
of Attorneys up to now. right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege
 Complainant alleges that respondent, while that can be withheld even from one who has
not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a passed the bar examinations, if the person
candidate in an election. seeking admission had practiced law without a
license.
 On the charge of violation of law, complainant
claims that respondent is a municipal  True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar
government employee, being a secretary of the Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath.
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As However, it is the signing in the Roll of
such, respondent is not allowed by law to act Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged
as counsel for a client in any court or lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the
administrative body. bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the
bar is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that
On the charge of grave misconduct and two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
misrepresentation, complainant accuses still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s
respondent of acting as counsel for vice oath to be administered by this Court and his
mayoralty candidate George Bunan without signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
the latter engaging respondent’s services.
Complainant claims that respondent filed the
pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation
of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
In Re to Sign the Rule of Attorney BM
3540
Issue:
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW/
 Whether or not respondent engaged in the FAILURE TO SIGN THE ROLL OF
unauthorized practice of law and thus does ATTORNEYS: Whether or not Petitioner
not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar should be allowed to sign the roll of attorneys

FACTS:
Ruling: -

 the Court held that “practice of law” means a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Medado –
any activity, in or out of court, which requires Win)
the application of law, legal procedure,
- Filed a petition to allow him to sign the roll shown that he possesses the character
of attorneys required to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
-Argued that he was not able to sign because -He also appears to have been a competent
he had lost the notice given by the bar and able legal practitioner, having held
confidant. He operated under the mistaken various positions at the Laurel Law Office,18
belief that since he had already taken the oath, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine
the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as National Oil Company, and the Energy
urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer. Development Corporation
But when he attended Mandatory Continuing Conclusion:
Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was - Thus, Petitioner is allowed to sign after one
required to provide his roll number in order year but fined with 32 000 pesos. The petition
for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not is granted
having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was
unable to provide his roll number
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (SC - Lost) Law Benjamin Dacanay
-
PRACTICE OF LAW/
ISSUE: QUALIFICATIONS: Whether or not
- Whether or not Petitioner should be allowed Petitioner should be allowed to resume
to sign the roll of attorneys practice of law

RULING: FACTS:
Conclusion: -
- Petitioner is allowed to sign after one year
but fined with 32 000 pesos. The petition is a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Dacanay –
granted Win)
Rule: - Filed a petition to resume to practice law in
- Knowingly engaging in unauthorized the Philippines for he became a Canadian
practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 citizen but reacquired Filipino citizenship
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, under RA 9255
which provides: CANON 9 -A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the b) Respondent’s Argument’s (SC - Lost)
unauthorized practice of law -
Application:
- In this case, As Medado is not yet a full- ISSUE:
fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from - Whether or not Petitioner should be allowed
the practice of law. However, we see it fit to to resume practice of law
impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension
by allowing him to sign in the Roll of RULING:
Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Conclusion:
Resolution. For his transgression of the - Petitioner is allowed to resume practice of
prohibition against the unauthorized practice law subject to certain requirements. The
of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in the petition is granted
amount of P32,000. Rule:
- Petitioner has not been subject to any action - Admission to the bar requires certain
for disqualification from the practice of law,17 qualifications. The Rules of Court mandates
which is more than what we can say of other that an applicant for admission to the bar be a
individuals who were successfully admitted as citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, years of age, of good moral character and a
this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to resident of the Philippines.5 He must also
adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics produce before this Court satisfactory
of the profession, and that he has prima facie evidence of good moral character and that no
charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in from this Court the authority to do so,
any court in the Philippines.6 conditioned on:
-Moreover, admission to the bar involves (a) the updating and payment in full of
various phases such as furnishing satisfactory the annual membership dues in the
proof of educational, moral and other IBP;
qualifications;7 passing the bar examinations;8 (b) the payment of professional tax;
taking the lawyer’s oath9 and signing the roll (c) the completion of at least 36 credit
of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of hours of mandatory continuing legal
court of this Court a certificate of the license to education; this is specially significant
practice.10 to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
-The second requisite for the practice of law ― knowledge of Philippine laws and
membership in good standing ― is a update him of legal developments and
continuing -requirement. This means (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath
continued membership and, concomitantly, which will not only remind him of his
payment of annual membership dues in the duties and responsibilities as a lawyer
IBP;11 payment of the annual professional and as an officer of the Court, but also
tax;12 compliance with the mandatory renew his pledge to maintain
continuing legal education requirement;13 allegiance to the Republic of the
faithful observance of the rules and ethics of Philippines.
the legal profession and being continually Conclusion:
subject to judicial disciplinary control - Thus, Petitioner is allowed to resume
- The Constitution provides that the practice practice of law subject to certain
of all professions in the Philippines shall be requirements. The petition is granted
limited to Filipino citizens save in cases
prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino citizenship
is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss
thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE
to engage in the practice of law. In other PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE
words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B. MUNESES,
terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege
denied to foreigners.16 A Filipino lawyer who re-acquires
-The exception is when Filipino citizenship is citizenship remains to be a member of
lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of the Philippine Bar but must apply for a
another country but subsequently reacquired license or permit to engage in law
pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all practice.
Philippine citizens who become citizens of
another country shall be deemed not to have On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B.
lost their Philippine citizenship under the Muneses with the Office of the Bar Confidant
conditions of [RA 9225]."17 Therefore, a (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of to practice law in the Philippines.
another country is deemed never to have lost Petitioner became a member of the IBP in
his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in 1966 but lost his privilege to practice law when
accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also he became a American citizen in 1981. In
deemed never to have terminated his 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine
membership in the Philippine bar, no citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 or the
automatic right to resume law practice “Citizenship Retention and Re-
accrues. Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking his oath
Application: of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the
- In this case, before Petitioner who reacquires Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C. He
Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can intends to retire in the Philippines and if
resume his law practice, he must first secure granted, to resume the practice of law.
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is The OBC further required the petitioner to
a requirement for admission to the bar and is, update his compliance, particularly with the
in fact, a continuing requirement for the MCLE. After all the requirements were
practice of law. The loss thereof means satisfactorily complied with and finding that
termination of the petitioner’s membership in the petitioner has met all the qualifications,
the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the the OBC recommended that the petitioner be
practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural- allowed to resume his practice of law.
born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are deemed to WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney
have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby GRANTED,
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the subject to the condition that he shall re-take
Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who the Lawyer's Oath on a date to be set by the
becomes a citizen of another country and later Court and subject to the payment of
re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under appropriate fees. 
R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar.  However, as stated in
Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of
law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs.
that a person who intends to practice his DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
profession in the Philippines must apply with LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LUIS T.
the proper authority for a license or permit to SANTOS, SECRETARY
engage in such practice.
Attorney Erwin B. Javellana was an elected
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid City Councilor of Bago City, Negros
down by the Court for the practice of law, the Occidental. On October 5, 1989, City Engineer
OBC required, and incompliance thereof, Ernesto C. Divinagracia 􏰄led Administrative
petitioner submitted the following: Case No. C-10-90 against Javellana for: (1)
violation of Department of Local Government
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine (DLG) otherwise known as the "Code of
Citizenship; Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Officials and Employees," and (2) for
citizenship); oppression, misconduct and abuse of
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the authority.
Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of
Divinagracia's complaint alleged that
Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of
Javellana, an incumbent member of the City
Immigration, in lieu of the IC;
Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-
City, and a lawyer by profession, has
Surigao City
continuously engaged in the practice of law
Chapter attesting to his good moral character
without securing authority for that purpose
as well as his updated payment of annual
from the Regional Director, Department of
membership dues;
Local Government,;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year
2010;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE that Javellana also appeared as counsel in
for the 2nd compliance period; and several criminal and civil cases in the city,
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of without prior authority of the DLG Regional
Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC- Director, in violation of DLG Memorandum
MCLE Program, Circular No. 80-38 .
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to
his compliance with the MCLE. In the 􏰄rst place, complaints against public
o􏰆cers and employees relating or incidental
to the performance of their duties are
necessarily impressed with public interest for
by express constitutional mandate, a public
o􏰆ce is a public trust. The complaint for Catu v Rellosa
illegal dismissal 􏰄led by Javiero and
Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia PRACTICE OF LAW/ PROHIBITIONS:
is in effect a complaint against the City Whether or not Respondent is
Government of Bago City, their real employer, administratively liable for appearing as
of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. counsel against the defendants in a case where
Hence, judgment against City Engineer Complainants are the plaintiff despite that he
Divinagracia, would actually be a judgment appeared before as the barangay’s Lupong
against the City Government. By serving as Tagapamayapa who heard the Complainants
counsel for the complaining employees and and the defendants
assisting them to prosecute their claims
against City Engineer Divinagracia, the FACTS:
petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. -
74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA
6713) prohibiting a government o􏰆cial from a) Complainant’s Arguments (Catu –
engaging in the private practice of his Win)
profession, if such practice would represent - Filed an administrative case against
interests adverse to the government. Respondent for he appeared as counsel
against the defendants in a case where
Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Complainants are the plaintiff. It is because
Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Respondent appeared before as the barangay’s
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Lupong Tagapamayapa who heard the
Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution is Complainants and the defendants but failed to
completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor reach an amicable settlement
the circular trenches upon the Supreme
Court's power and authority to prescribe rules b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty.
on the practice of law. The Local Government Rellosa - Lost)
Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90- - Argued that as head of the Lupon, he
81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public performed his task with utmost objectivity,
o􏰆cials to avoid con􏰇icts of interest between without bias or partiality towards any of the
the discharge of their public duties and the parties
private practice of their profession, in those -Argued that he handled defendant’s case for
instances where the law allows it. free because they were financially distressed
and he wanted to prevent the commission of a
Section 90 of the Local Government Code patent injustice against them
does not discriminate against lawyers and
doctors. It applies to all provincial and ISSUE:
municipal o􏰆cials in the professions or - Whether or not Respondent is
engaged in any occupation. Section 90 administratively liable for appearing as
explicitly provides that sanggunian members counsel against the defendants in a case where
"may practice their professions, engage in any Complainants are the plaintiff despite that he
occupation, or teach in schools except during appeared before as the barangay’s Lupong
session hours." If there are some prohibitions Tagapamayapa who heard the Complainants
that apply particularly to lawyers, it is because and the defendants
of all the professions, the practice of law is
more likely than others to relate to, or affect, RULING:
the area of public service. Conclusion:
- Respondent is administratively liable. He is
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for suspended from the practice of law for 6
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner. months
Rule:
- A civil service officer or employee whose This disciplinary case arose out of a
responsibilities do not require his time to be disagreement that complainant had with her
fully at the disposal of the government can uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping
engage in the private practice of law only with contract they had entered into. In a bid to
the written permission of the head of the have the stand-off between them settled,
department concerned complainant addressed a letter, styled
Application: "Sumbong" , 1 to Bonifacio Alcantara,
- In this case, As punong barangay, barangay captain of Brgy. San Pascual,
respondent should have therefore obtained Talavera, Nueva Ecija. At the barangay
the prior written permission of the Secretary conciliation/confrontation proceedings
of Interior and Local Government before he conducted on January 5, 2003, respondent, on
entered his appearance as counsel for the strength of a Special Power of Attorney
Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do. signed by Lorenzo Inos, appeared for the
-The failure of respondent to comply with latter, accompanied by his son, Lorenzito.
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Complainant's objection to respondent's
Service Rules constitutes a violation of his appearance elicited the response that Lorenzo
oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Lawyers are Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer
servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. inasmuch as complainant is herself a lawyer.
Their paramount duty to society is to obey the And as to complainant's retort that her being a
law and promote respect for it. To underscore lawyer is merely coincidental, respondent
the primacy and importance of this duty, it is countered that she is appearing as an
enshrined as the first canon of the Code of attorney-in-fact, not as counsel, of Lorenzo
Professional Responsibility. Inos.
-In acting as counsel for a party without first
securing the required written permission, In an Order dated February 17, 2003, Atty.
respondent not only engaged in the Victor C. Fernandez, IBP Director for Bar
unauthorized practice of law but also violated Discipline, directed the respondent to submit,
civil service rules which is a breach of Rule within 􏰈fteen (15) days from notice, her
1.01 of the Code of Professional answer to the complaint, otherwise she will be
Responsibility: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
considered as in default. 3
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. (emphasis supplied)
-For not living up to his oath as well as for not The case, docketed as CBD No. 03-1061, was
complying with the exacting ethical standards assigned to Commissioner Rebecca
of the legal profession, respondent failed to Villanueva-Maala, who admitted respondent's
comply with Canon 7 of the Code of answer notwithstanding her earlier order of
Professional Responsibility: CANON 7. A July 15, 2003, declaring respondent in default
LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD for failure to file an answer in due time .
THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT In her Answer, respondent alleged that the
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED administrative complaint was 􏰈led with the
BAR. O􏰁ce of the Punong Barangay, instead of
Conclusion: before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, and heard
- Thus, Respondent is administratively liable. by Punong Barangay Bonifacio Alcantara
He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 alone, instead of the collegial Lupon or a
months conciliation panel known as pangkat.
Prescinding from this premise, respondent
submits that the prohibition against a lawyer
appearing to assist a client inkatarungan
pambarangay proceedings does not apply.
ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO,
Further, she argued that her appearance was
complainant, vs. ATTY. OLIVIA
not as a lawyer, but only as an attorney-in-
VELASCO- JACOBA, respondent.
fact.
In her report dated October 6, 2003, 5 RULING:
Commissioner Maala stated that the "charge Conclusion:
of complainant has been established by clear - Respondents are liable. Atty. De Guzman is
preponderance of evidence" and, on that basis, disbarred. Atty. Balgos is severely
recommended that respondent be suspended reprimanded. The NBI is tasked for further
from the practice of her profession for a investigation regarding the other Respondents
period of six (6) months . Rule:
- Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
The rationale behind the personal appearance unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
requirement is to enable the lupon to secure conduct
first hand and direct information about the Canon 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
facts and issues, 8 the exception being in cases
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
where minors or incompetents are parties.
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
The prohibition against the presence of a Application:
lawyer in a barangay conciliation proceedings - In this case, Atty. Balgos claimed that the
was not, to be sure, lost on respondent. Her leaked test questions were prepared by him on
defense that the aforequoted Section 415 of his computer. Without any doubt, the source
the LGC does not apply since complainant of the leaked test questions was Atty. Balgos’
addressed her Sumbong to the barangay computer. The culprit who stole or
captain of Brgy. San Pascual who thereafter downloaded them from Atty. Balgos’ computer
proceeded to hear the same is specious at best. without the latter’s knowledge and consent,
In this regard, su􏰁ce it to state that and who faxed them to other persons, was
complainant wrote her Sumbong with the end Atty. Balgos’ legal assistant, Attorney Danilo
in view of availing herself of the bene􏰈ts of De Guzman, who voluntarily confessed the
barangay justice. That she addressed her deed to the Investigating Committee. De
Sumbong to the barangay captain is really of Guzman revealed that he faxed the test
little moment since the latter chairs the questions, with the help of his secretary
Lupong Tagapamayapa. Reynita Villasis, to his fraternity ‘brods,’
namely, Ronan Garvida, Arlan (whose
surname he could not recall), and Erwin Tan.
2003 Bar Examination "In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test
questions to Betans Randy Iñigo and James
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondents are Bugain. "Randy Iñigo passed a copy or copies
liable for the leakage of test questions prior to of the same questions to another Betan, Alan
the exam Guiapal, who gave a copy to the MLQU-Beta
Sigma [Lambda’s] Most Illustrious Brother,
FACTS: Ronald F. Collado, who ordered the printing
- and distribution of 30 copies to the MLQU’s
30 bar candidates.
a) Petitioner’s Arguments (SC – Win) -"De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct
- Nullified the bar examination in Mercantile unbecoming a member of the Bar. He violated
Law due to a rumored leakage of test the law instead of promoting respect for it and
questions prior to the exam degraded the noble profession of law instead
of upholding its dignity and integrity. His
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. De actuations impaired public respect for the
Guzman, et al. - Lost) Court, and damaged the integrity of the bar
- examinations as the final measure of a law
graduate’s academic preparedness to embark
ISSUE: upon the practice of law.
- Whether or not Respondents are liable for Conclusion:
the leakage of test questions prior to the exam - Thus, Respondents are liable. Atty. De
Guzman is disbarred. Atty. Balgos is severely
reprimanded. The NBI is tasked for further prompt payment of financial obligations. They
investigation regarding the other Respondents must conduct themselves in a manner that
reflect the values and norms of the legal
Barrientos V. Liberan profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.20 Canon 1 and
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:
liable for deceit and non-payment of debt CANON 1 -- A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land
FACTS: and promote respect for law and for
- legal processes.
Rule 1.01 -- A lawyer shall not engage
a) Complainant’s Arguments in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
(Barrientos – Win) deceitful conduct.
- Filed a disbarment case against Respondent Application:
for deceit and non-payment of debt - In this case, respondent in her answer
-Argued that Respondent issued Complainant initially tried to deny having any obligation
a bouncing check for payment of a pre- towards Isidra Barrientos. Upon appearing
existing debt. Petitioner even filed a criminal before the IBP-CBD, however, respondent
case against Respondent eventually acknowledged her indebtedness to
Isidra in the amount of P134,000.00,
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. promising only to pay in a staggered basis.
Libiran-Meteoro - Lost) Her attempt to evade her financial obligation
- Argued that the criminal case against her runs counter to the precepts of the Code of
was dismissed and that Complainant already Professional Responsibility, above quoted, and
executed an affidavit of desistance violates the lawyer’s oath which imposes upon
every member of the bar the duty to delay no
ISSUE: man for money or malice
- Whether or not Respondent is liable for - After respondent acknowledged her debt to
deceit and non-payment of debt complainant, she committed herself to the
payment thereof. Yet she failed many times to
RULING: fulfill said promise. She did not appear in
Conclusion: most of the hearings and merely submitted a
- Respondent is liable. She is suspended for 6 motion for reconsideration on August 1, 2002
months and ordered to pay Complainant the after the IBP-CBD Commissioner had already
amount of P84,000.00, as balance of her debt submitted the case for resolution. She claimed
to the latter, plus 6% interest from date of that she got sick days before the hearing and
finality of herein decision. The petition is asked for sixty days to finally settle her
granted account. Again, she failed to fulfill her promise
Rule: and did not appear before the Commission in
- We have held that deliberate failure to pay the succeeding hearings despite due notice.
just debts and the issuance of worthless After the case was submitted anew for
checks constitute gross misconduct, for which resolution on October 6, 2003, respondent
a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension filed another motion for reconsideration, this
from the practice of law.18 Lawyers are time saying that she was in the province
instruments for the administration of justice attending to personal matters. Again she
and vanguards of our legal system. They are asked for another ninety days to settle her
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency entire debt. This repeated failure on her part
but also a high standard of morality, honesty, to fulfill her promise puts in question her
integrity and fair dealing so that the people’s integrity and moral character. Her failure to
faith and confidence in the judicial system is attend most of the hearings called by the
ensured.19 They must at all times faithfully commission and her belated pleas for
perform their duties to society, to the bar, the reconsideration also manifest her propensity
courts and to their clients, which include to delay the resolution of the case and to make
full use of the mechanisms of administrative - Respondent is liable. He is disbarred. The
proceedings to her benefit. petition is granted
Conclusion: Rule:
- Thus, Respondent is liable. She is suspended - Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
for 6 months and ordered to pay Complainant Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
the amount of P84,000.00, as balance of her or suspended from his office as attorney by the
debt to the latter, plus 6% interest from date Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
of finality of herein decision. The petition is other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
granted immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission
Barrios v Atty Francisco to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
liable administratively for been convicted by for a party to a case without authority to do so.
final judgment in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a -Moral turpitude "includes everything which is
crime involving moral turpitude which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
violation of BP 22 good morals."23 It involves "an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties
FACTS: which a man owes his fellow men, or to society
- in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man
a) Complainant’s Arguments (Barrios – and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
Win) honesty, modesty, or good morals
- Filed a disbarment case against Respondent Application:
for having been convicted by final judgment in - In this case, respondent has been found
Criminal Case No. 6608 of a crime involving guilty and convicted by final judgment for
moral turpitude which is violation of BP 22 violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless
check in the amount of P8,000. The issue with
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. which we are now concerned is whether or not
Martinez - Lost) the said crime is one involving moral
- Argued that Complainant already passed turpitude
away sometime in June 1997 -Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in
-Argued that said administrative complaint is issuing a check without sufficient funds to
an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in cover the same constitutes such willful
respondent's favor (as plaintiff in the said dishonesty and immoral conduct as to
case). Respondent avers that as a result of his undermine the public confidence in law and
moving for the execution of judgment in his lawyers. And while "the general rule is that a
favor and the eviction of the family of herein lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred,
complainant Michael Barrios, the latter filed and the court may not ordinarily assume
the present administrative case jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct
in his non-professional or private capacity,
ISSUE: where, however, the misconduct outside of the
- Whether or not Respondent is liable lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a
administratively for been convicted by final character as to show him morally unfit for the
judgment in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a office and unworthy of the privilege which his
crime involving moral turpitude which is licenses and the law confer on him, the court
violation of BP 22 may be justified in suspending or removing
him from the office of attorney
RULING: Conclusion:
Conclusion: - Thus, Respondent is liable. He is disbarred.
The petition is granted
A1 Financial Services standard of morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing so that the people’s faith and
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
liable administratively for violation of BP 22 They must at all times faithfully perform their
and non-payment of debt duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to
their clients, which include prompt payment
FACTS: of financial obligations. They must conduct
- themselves in a manner that reflects the
values and norms of the legal profession as
a) Complainant’s Arguments (A1 embodied in the Code of Professional
Financial Services, Inc. – Win) Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01
- Filed a disbarment case against Respondent explicitly states that:
for violation of BP 22 and non-payment of Canon 1— A lawyer shall uphold the
debt constitution, obey the laws of the land and
-Argued that Complainant granted the loan promote respect for law and for legal
application of Respondent Atty. Valerio processes.
amounting to P50,000.00. To secure the Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in
payment of the loan obligation, Respondent unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Atty. Valerio issued a postdated check, to wit: conduct
Check No. 0000012725; dated April 1, 2002, Application:
in the amount: P50,000.00.2 However, upon - In this case, there is no denial of the
presentation at the bank for payment on its existence of the loan obligation despite
maturity date, the check was dishonored due respondent’s failure to cooperate before any
to insufficient funds. As of the filing of the proceedings in relation to the complaint. Prior
instant case, despite repeated demands to pay to the filing of the complaint against her, Atty.
her obligation, Respondent Atty. Valerio failed Valerio’s act of making partial payments of the
to pay the whole amount of her obligation loan and interest suffices as proof that indeed
-Also filed a criminal case against Respondent there is an obligation to pay on her part.
Respondent’s mother, Mrs. Valerio, likewise,
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. acknowledged her daughter’s obligation.
Valerio - Lost) -The Court, likewise, finds unmeritorious Mrs.
- Argued that her daughter is suffering from a Valerio’s justification that her daughter, Atty.
health condition, i.e. schizophrenia, which has Valerio, is suffering from a health condition,
prevented her from properly answering the i.e. schizophrenia, which has prevented her
complaint against her from properly answering the complaint
against her. Indeed, we cannot take the
ISSUE: "medical certificate" on its face, considering
- Whether or not Respondent is liable Mrs. Valerio’s failure to prove the contents of
administratively for violation of BP 22 and the certificate or present the physician who
non-payment of debt issued it.
Conclusion:
RULING: - Thus, Respondent is liable. She is suspended
Conclusion: for 2 years. The complaint is granted
- Respondent is liable. She is suspended for 2
years. The complaint is granted
Rule:
- Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the Cham v Atty Eva Paita
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice
of law. Lawyers are instruments for the
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is
administration of justice and vanguards of our
liable administratively for he committed
legal system. They are expected to maintain
deceit in occupying a leased apartment unit
not only legal proficiency but also a high
and, thereafter, vacating the same without -"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in
paying the rentals due unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."
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
a) Complainant’s Arguments (Cham – duties, they must promptly pay their financial
Win) obligations. Their conduct must always reflect
- Filed a complaint against Respondent for she the values and norms of the legal profession as
committed deceit in occupying a leased embodied in the Code of Professional
apartment unit and, thereafter, vacating the Responsibility. On these considerations, the
same without paying the rentals due Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any
-Argued that Respondent stayed at the leased professional or private misconduct showing
premises up to October 2000 without paying them to be wanting in moral character,
her rentals from July to October 2000. She honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or to
also failed to settle her electric bills for the be unworthy to continue as officers of the
months of September and October 2000. The Court.
Statement of Account as of 15 October 20043 Application:
shows that respondent’s total accountability is - In this case, Respondent left the apartment
P71,007.88. unit without settling her unpaid obligations,
and without the complainant’s knowledge and
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. consent. Respondent’s abandonment of the
Paita-Moya - Lost) leased premises to avoid her obligations for
- Argued that that she had religiously paid her the rent and electricity bills constitutes
monthly rentals and had not vacated the deceitful conduct violative of the Code of
apartment unit surreptitiously. She also Professional Responsibility, particularly
averred that she transferred to another place Canon I and Rule 1.01 thereof
because she was given notice by the - Respondent’s defense that she does not know
complainant to vacate the premises to give where to find the complainant or his office is
way for the repair and renovation of the same, specious and does not inspire belief
but which never happened until presently. considering that she had been occupying the
Respondent actually wanted to ask apartment unit and paying the rents due
complainant to account for her deposit for the (except for the period complained of) for
apartment unit, but she could not do so since almost two years. How she could have dealt
she did not know complainant’s address or with complainant and GRDC for two years
contact number. For the same reason, she without at all knowing their office address and
could not turn over to the complainant the contact numbers totally escapes this Court.
door keys to the vacated apartment unit. This is only a desperate attempt to justify what
is clearly an unjustifiable
ISSUE: Conclusion:
- Whether or not Respondent is liable - Thus, Respondent is liable. She is suspended
administratively for he committed deceit in for 1 month. The complaint is granted
occupying a leased apartment unit and,
thereafter, vacating the same without paying
the rentals due ARCATOMY S.
GUARIN, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RULING: CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, Respondent.
Conclusion:
- Respondent is liable. She is suspended for 1
month. The complaint is granted
Rule: In 2004, Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de
-"CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the los Angeles as Chief Operating Officer and
constitution, obey the laws of the land and thereafter as President of OneCard Company,
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Inc., a member of the Legacy Group of
Companies. He resigned from his post Lastly, Atty. Limpin contends that Guarin
effective August 11, 2008 and transferred to failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant
St. Luke’s Medical Center as the Vice disbarment.  She stated that merely
President for Finance. presenting the GIS does not constitute as
proof of any unethical conduct, harassment
On November 27, 2008, Atty. Limpin, the and malpractice.
Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc.
(LCI), another corporation under the Legacy In its Report,13 the IBP CBD found that Atty.
Group, filed with the SEC a GIS for LCI for Limpin violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and
“updating purposes”.  The GIS4 identified 1.0214 of the CPR and thus recommended that
Guarin as Chairman of the Board of Directors she be suspended from the practice of law for
(BOD) and President. three months.  It noted that based on the
submissions of the parties, Guarin was never a
Mired with allegations of anomalous business stockholder of LCI consequently making him
transactions and practices, on December 18, ineligible to be a member of the BOD.  Neither
2008, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution was there proof that Guarin acted as the
with the SEC. President of LCI but was a mere signatory of
LCI’s bank accounts.  This made the verified
On July 22, 2009, Guarin filed this complaint statement of Atty. Limpin
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines untrue.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD)
claiming that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly listing The IBP Board of Governors in its April 15,
him as a stockholder, Chairman of the Board 2013 Resolution16 adopted in toto the CBD
and President of LCI when she knew that he Report.  Atty. Limpin moved for
had already resigned and had never held any reconsideration17 but was denied in the March
share nor was he elected as chairperson of the 21, 2014 Resolution18 of the IBP Board of
BOD or been President of LCI.  He also never Governors.
received any notice of meeting or agenda
where his appointment as Chairman would be Members of the bar are reminded that their
taken up.  He has never accepted any first duty is to comply with the rules of
appointment as Chairman and President of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as
LCI. loopholes.19  A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating
Atty. Limpin admits that she filed the GIS with the law commits an act which justifies
the SEC listing Guarin as a stockholder, the disciplinary action against the
Chairman of the BOD and President of LCI.  lawyer.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
She argued that the GIS was provisional to
comply with SEC requirements. It would have Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and
been corrected in the future but unfortunately can proceed independently of civil and
LCI filed for voluntary dissolution shortly criminal cases.  As Justice Malcolm stated
thereafter.  She averred that the GIS was made “[t]he serious consequences of disbarment or
and submitted in good faith and that her suspension should follow only where there is a
certification served to attest to the information clear preponderance of evidence against the
from the last BOD meeting held on March 3, respondent. The presumption is that the
2008.5chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary attorney is innocent of the charges pr[o]ferred
and has performed his duty as an officer of the
To belie the claim that LCI never held any court in accordance with his
board meeting, Atty. Limpin presented oath.”21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Secretary’s Certificates dated May 16, 20066,
May 22, 20067, and June 13, 20078 bearing Grounds for such administrative action
Guarin’s signature. against a lawyer may be found in Section
27,22 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.  Among
these are (1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, was his writing the love letter to
or other gross misconduct in such office and Complainant's bride on the very day of her
(2) any violation of the oath which he is wedding, vowing to continue his love for her
required to take before the admission to "until we are together again," as now they are
practice.
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. Eala
It was noted that there was no submission - Lost)
which would support the allegation that - Argued that he specifically denies having
Guarin was in fact a stockholder.  We thus find ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with
that in filing a GIS that contained false Irene as alleged in paragraph 14 of the
information, Atty. Limpin committed an Complaint, the truth of the matter being that
infraction which did not conform to her oath their relationship was low profile and known
as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule only to the immediate members of their
1.01 of the CPR. respective families, and that Respondent, as
far as the general public was concerned, was
It was agreed with the IBP that in allowing still known to be legally married to Mary Anne
herself to be swayed by the business practice Tantoco
of having Mr. de los Angeles appoint the -Argued that his relationship with Irene was
members of the BOD and officers of the not under scandalous circumstances and that
corporation despite the rules enunciated in as far as his relationship with his own family
the Corporation Code with respect to the he has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful
election of such officers, Atty. Limpin has relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in
transgressed Rule 1.02 of the CPR. fact they still occasionally meet in public, even
if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special
However, considering the seriousness of Atty. friendship with Irene.
Limpin’s action in submitting a false
document we see it fit to increase the ISSUE:
recommended penalty to six months - Whether or not Respondent is liable
suspension from the practice of administratively for grossly immoral conduct
law.chanrobleslaw and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath

RULING:
Guevarra v Eala Conclusion:
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is - Respondent is liable. He is disbarred. The
liable administratively for grossly immoral complaint is granted
conduct and unmitigated violation of the Rule:
lawyer's oath - The immediately-quoted Rule which
provides the grounds for disbarment or
FACTS: suspension uses the phrase "grossly immoral
- conduct," not "under scandalous
circumstances."
a) Complainant’s Arguments (Guevarra -Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a
– Win) woman not his wife or without the benefit of
- Filed a complaint against Respondent for marriage should be characterized as 'grossly
grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding
violation of the lawyer's oath circumstances.
-Argued that Respondent's adulterous conduct Application:
with Complainant's wife and his apparent - In this case, it involves a relationship
abandoning or neglecting of his own family, between a married lawyer and a married
demonstrate his gross moral depravity, woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
making him morally unfit to keep his whether the affair was carried out discreetly
membership in the bar. He flaunted his - Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
aversion to the institution of marriage, calling the Code of Professional Responsibility which
it a "piece of paper." Morally reprehensible proscribes a lawyer from engaging in
"unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Conclusion:
conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the - Respondent is allowed to take the lawyer’s
same Code which proscribes a lawyer from oath. The complaint is dismissed.
engaging in any "conduct that adversely Rule:
reflects on his fitness to practice law." - A grossly immoral act is one that is so
- That the marriage between complainant and corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
is immaterial. The acts complained of took reprehensible to a high degree." 6 It is a
place before the marriage was declared null willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows
and void.43 As a lawyer, respondent should be a moral indifference to the opinion of
aware that a man and a woman deporting respectable members of the community
themselves as husband and wife are -We find the ruling in Arciga v. Maniwang 8
presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have quite relevant because mere intimacy between
entered into a lawful contract of marriage.44 In a man and a woman, both of whom possess no
carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on
prior to the judicial declaration that her and devoid of any deceit on the part of
marriage with complainant was null and void, respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so
and despite respondent himself being unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of
married, he showed disrespect for an disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
institution held sacred by the law. And he result of such relationship a child was born
betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer. out of wedlock
Conclusion: Application:
- Thus, Respondent is liable. He is disbarred. - In this case, we find that these facts do not
The complaint is granted constitute gross immorality warranting the
permanent exclusion of respondent from the
Figuerroa v Baranco legal profession. His engaging in premarital
sexual relations with complainant and
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent be promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral
denied to take the lawyer’s oath for his breach character on his part but the same does not
of promise to marry Complainant constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court
has held that to justify suspension or
FACTS: disbarment the act complained of must not
- only be immoral, but grossly immoral
Conclusion:
a) Complainant’s Arguments (Figueroa - Thus, Respondent is allowed to take the
– Lost) lawyer’s oath. The complaint is dismissed
- Filed a complaint to deny Respondent to take
the lawyer’s oath
-Argued that that Respondent and she had Advincula v Macabata
been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock
was born to them and that Respondent did not CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is
fulfill his repeated promises to marry her liable administratively for gross immorality

b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Barranco FACTS:

- Win) -
-
a) Complainant’s Arguments
ISSUE: (Advincula – Lost)
- Whether or not Respondent be denied to - Filed a complaint against Respondent for
take the lawyer’s oath for his breach of gross immorality
promise to marry Complainant -Argued that she hired Respondent as her
lawyer for her collectibles against Queensway
RULING: Travel and Tours but Respondent took
advantage by giving her a ride and hold (sic)
her arm and kissed her on the cheek and even if considered offensive and undesirable,
embraced her very tightly cannot be considered grossly immoral.
- Complainant miserably failed to comply with
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. the burden of proof required of her. A mere
Macabata - Win) charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not
- Argued that complainant offered her lips to suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with
him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and guilt.32
Roosevelt Avenue, where he dropped off the -Moreover, while respondent admitted having
complainant, was a busy street teeming with kissed complainant on the lips, the same was
people, thus, it would have been impossible to not motivated by malice. We come to this
commit the acts imputed to him. conclusion because right after the
complainant expressed her annoyance at
ISSUE: being kissed by the respondent through a
- Whether or not Respondent is liable cellular phone text message, respondent
administratively for gross immorality immediately extended an apology to
complainant also via cellular phone text
RULING: message. The exchange of text messages
Conclusion: between complainant and respondent bears
- Respondent is not liable. The complaint is this out.
dismissed. -Be it noted also that the incident happened in
Rule: a place where there were several people in the
- The Code of Professional Responsibility vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a
provides: major jeepney route for 24 hours. If
CANON I – x x x respondent truly had malicious designs on
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in complainant, he could have brought her to a
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful private place or a more remote place where he
conduct. could freely accomplish the same.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold -All told, as shown by the above
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession circumstances, respondent’s acts are not
and support the activities of the Integrated grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to
Bar. warrant disbarment or suspension.
xxxx Conclusion:
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in - Thus, Respondent is not liable. The
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to complaint is dismissed
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to Zaguirre v Castillo
the discredit of the legal profession.
-It is difficult to state with precision and to fix CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is
an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly liable administratively for gross immoral
immoral conduct" or to specify the moral conduct
delinquency and obliquity which render a
lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of FACTS:
the bar. The rule implies that what appears to -
be unconventional behavior to the straight-
laced may not be the immoral conduct that a) Complainant’s Arguments (Zaguirre
warrants disbarment – Win)
Application: - Filed a complaint against Respondent for
- In this case, we perceived acts of kissing or gross immoral conduct
beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of -Argued that Respondent had intimate affairs
friendship and camaraderie,27 forms of with her but he was already married.
greetings, casual and customary. The acts of Respondent executed an affidavit, admitting
respondent, though, in turning the head of his relationship with the Complainant and
complainant towards him and kissing her on recognizing the unborn child she was carrying
the lips are distasteful. However, such act,
as his.6 On December 9, 1997, complainant indifference to the opinion of good and
gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha Jessa. 7 By this respectable members of the
time however, respondent had started to community. Furthermore, such
refuse recognizing the child and giving her any conduct must not only be immoral,
form of support but grossly immoral. That is, it must
be so corrupt as to constitute a
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. criminal act or so unprincipled as to
Castillo - Lost) be reprehensible to a high degree or
-Argued that he never courted the committed under such scandalous or
complainant; what transpired between them revolting circumstances as to shock
was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he the common sense of decency."13
never represented himself as single since it Application:
was known in the NBI that he was already - In this case, siring a child with a woman
married and with children;9 complainant is other than his wife is a conduct way below the
almost 10 years older than him and knew standards of morality required of every
beforehand that he is already married;10 the lawyer.17Moreover, the attempt of respondent
child borne by complainant is not his, because to renege on his notarized statement
the complainant was seeing other men at the recognizing and undertaking to support his
time they were having an affair.11 He admits child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
that he signed the affidavit dated September unscrupulousness on his part which is highly
10, 1997 but explains that he only did so to censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble
save complainant from embarrassment. Also, profession, tantamount to self-stultification.18
he did not know at the time that complainant -
Respondent claims that he did not use any
was seeing other men.12 deception to win her affection. Granting
arguendo that complainant entered into a
ISSUE: relationship with him knowing full well his
- Whether or not Respondent is liable marital status, still it does not absolve him of
administratively for gross immoral conduct gross immorality for what is in question in a
case like this is respondent's fitness to be a
RULING: member of the legal profession. It is not
Conclusion: dependent whether or not the other party
- Respondent is liable. He is suspended knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship
indefinitely. The complaint is granted. with him
Rule: -Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual
- The Code of Professional Responsibility congress with a woman not his wife and now
provides: refuses to recognize and support a child whom
"Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage he previously recognized and promised to
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or support. Clearly therefore, respondent
deceitful conduct." violated the standards of morality required of
xxx           xxx           xxx the legal profession and should be disciplined
"CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all accordingly
times uphold the integrity and dignity Conclusion:
of the legal profession, and support - Thus, Respondent is liable. He is suspended
the activities of the Integrated Bar." indefinitely. The complaint is granted
xxx           xxx           xxx
"Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflects on Ventura V. Samson
his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is
behave in a scandalous manner to the liable administratively for grossly immoral
discredit of the legal profession." conduct
-Immoral conduct has been defined as:
"x x x that conduct which is so willful, FACTS:
flagrant, or shameless as to show -
 -Immoral conduct involves acts that are
a) Complainant’s Arguments (Ventura willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
– Win) moral indifference to the opinion of the
- Filed a complaint against Respondent for upright and respectable members of the
grossly immoral conduct community.16 Immoral conduct is gross when
-Argued that the crime of RAPE was it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
committed against her person sometime in or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
December, 2001 and on 19 March 2002 when high degree, or when committed under such
she was merely thirteen (13) years of age by scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
herein Respondent ATTY. DANILO S. shock the community’s sense of decency
SAMSON, then thirty eight (38) years old, Application:
married to Teresita B. Samson, Filipino and - In this case, we find that respondent’s act of
resident of Barangay 5, San Francisco, Agusan engaging in sex with a young lass, the
Del Sur, Philippines daughter of his former employee, constitutes
gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual
Samson - Lost) intercourse with complainant but also showed
- Argued that the act of respondent in having no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that
sex with complainant was done with mutual he did nothing wrong because she allegedly
agreement after respondent gave money to agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed,
complainant. Respondent respectfully submits his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman
that his act of having sex with complainant other than his wife manifests his disrespect for
once does not constitute… grossly immoral the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
conduct. own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact
that he procured the act by enticing a very
young woman with money showed his utmost
ISSUE: moral depravity and low regard for the dignity
- Whether or not Respondent is liable of the human person and the ethics of his
administratively for grossly immoral conduct profession.
- Respondent has violated the trust and
RULING: confidence reposed on him by complainant,
Conclusion: then a 13-year-old minor,19 who for a time was
- Respondent is liable. He is disbarred. The under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual
complaint is granted encounter between the respondent and
Rule: complainant was or was not with the latter’s
- CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly
THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. transgression of the standards of morality
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in required of the legal profession and should be
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful disciplined accordingly.
conduct. Conclusion:
xxxx - Thus, Respondent is liable. He is disbarred.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL The complaint is granted
TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
xxxx
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
 PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES
Application:
- In this case, Respondent, in giving advice
Stemmerick v Mas that directly contradicted a fundamental
constitutional policy, showed disrespect for
the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic
CANON 1: Whether or not Respondent is
law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents
liable administratively for serious misconduct
that he knew were void and illegal.
-By making it appear that de Mesa undertook
FACTS:
to sell the property to complainant and that de
-
Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales
who made the purchase for and in behalf of
a) Complainant’s Arguments
complainant, he falsified public documents
(Stemmerik – Win)
and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy
- Filed a complaint against Respondent for
Law.26
serious misconduct
-Respondent’s misconduct did not end there.
-Argued that Respondent gravely
By advising complainant that a foreigner could
misrepresent that a foreigner could legally
legally and validly acquire real estate in the
acquire land in the Philippines and for
Philippines and by assuring complainant that
maliciously absconding with Complainant’s
the property was alienable, respondent
P3.8 million for fraudulently drafting a deed
deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client.
of sale in his favor but such was registered to a
He did not give due regard to the trust and
certain Ailyn Gonzales. In fact, the land is
confidence reposed in him by complainant.
inalienable as it was situated within the
Instead, he deceived complainant and misled
former US Military Reservation
him into parting with P400,000 for services
that were both illegal and unprofessional.
b) Respondent’s Argument’s (Atty. Mas
Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating
- Lost)
the P3.8 million given by complainant for the
-
purchase of the property, respondent
committed a fraudulent act that was criminal
ISSUE:
in nature
- Whether or not Respondent is liable
-For all this, respondent violated not only the
administratively for serious misconduct
lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He also
RULING:
transgressed the following provisions of the
Conclusion:
Code of Professional Responsibility:
- Respondent is liable. He is disbarred and
Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in
ordered to return to Complainant the total
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12%
conduct.
per annum from the date of promulgation of
Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
this resolution until full payment. The
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
complaint is granted.
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule:
CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL
- Lawyers are servants of the law23 and the law
TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
is their master. They should not simply obey
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
the laws, they should also inspire respect for
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars
INTEGRATED BAR.
worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE
precept of the Code of Professional
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL
Responsibility: CANON 1 – A LAWYER
HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
HIS CLIENT.
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN
TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY
TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM
Conclusion:
- Thus, Respondent is liable. He is disbarred
and ordered to return to Complainant the total
amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12%
per annum from the date of promulgation of
this resolution until full payment. The
complaint is granted.