1. Antonio T. Aguinaldo v Atty. Isaiah Asuncion, Jr., A.C. No. 12086, Oct.

7, 2020

About: The respondent, Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr. is found GUILTY of committing dishonest,
deceitful, and fraudulent acts prejudicial to the legal profession and in violation of Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to the facilitating the sale of a land
that supposedly belonged to his mother but in fact already belonged to another.

Facts:
The complainant alleged that sometime in October 2010, he, together with the respondent, the
respondent's mother and their agent Mia Gan, talked about the sale of respondent's property at
Banauang, Moncada, Tarlac, consisting of 4.4 hectares. Respondent agreed to sell the property
to the complainant. As part of the agreement, the complainant handed to respondent One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as earnest money.

Later, the respondent went back to the complainant asking for Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P400,000.00) which the complainant refused to give due to the fact that the respondent failed
to present documents pertaining to the property. Due to the continued failure of respondent to
give the particular details of the property subject of their agreement, complainant sought the
return of his money. Despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to return the earnest
money to the damage of the complainant.

For the respondent's failure to return the earnest money, the complainant accused the
respondent of fraud and of using his profession to take advantage of the limited knowledge of
the complainant which is in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.

On the other hand, the respondent claims that he is wrongfully accused of fraud by the
complainant.

He asserts that the agreement he had with the complainant was that the earnest money would
serve as guaranty that the complainant would not back out from the transaction and that the
respondent's mother would not sell the subject portion of the land to other buyers until
November 20, 2012, the date when the complainant is bound to pay the down payment of Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). He insists that he is not legally obliged to return the
earnest money since the complainant failed to comply with his own obligation of not paying the
down payment on its due date and is then considered to have backed out from the transaction.

The respondent also alleged that the complainant imposed new conditions not previously
agreed including the segregation of the property and the issuance of the individual title for the
said property.

Issue/s: WON the respondent is guilty of violating the CPR; WON the acts constitute sufficient
grounds for disbarment

Ruling:
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Atty. Asuncion
employed trickery by luring the Aguinaldo into agreeing to buy the subject property. The
respondent should not have led the complainant to believe that the subject parcel of land was
still owned by his mother when in truth and in fact, it was already sold to another buyer. Atty.
Asuncion failed to disclose the fact that the property is already owned by the Posadas family.
This was substantiated by the fact that the respondent failed to produce documents to prove his
title/ownership of the property when it was required by the complainant. As a lawyer, the
respondent was duty-bound to observe fairness and candor in his dealing with the complainant.

As to the earnest money, the petitioner clearly stated without any objection from private
respondents that the earnest money was intended to form part of the purchase price. It was an
advance payment which must be deducted from the total price. Hence, the parties could not
have intended that the earnest money or advance payment would be forfeited when the buyer
should fail to pay the balance of the price, especially in the absence of a clear and express
agreement thereon. In the present case, Aguinaldo and Atty. Asuncion did not agree to have the
earnest money forfeited should the buyer fail to pay the balance of the price since no express
agreement exists to support such claim. Hence, in the first place, Atty. Asuncion should have
returned the money when the transaction did not materialize.

Since the respondent willfully refused to return the earnest money given by the complainant,
notwithstanding the fact that the transaction did not materialize. Atty. Asuncion's integrity was
placed in serious doubt when the earnest money was paid by Aguinaldo in advance. It started
motivating the respondent’s every move to seemingly evade the pending transaction back then.
The respondent even blamed the complainant for the failed transaction and insisted that the
latter had forfeited the earnest money for backing out from the transaction in view of the
unrealistic condition he has imposed and his failure to pay the down payment.

According to the IBP, this is: “..preposterous. In the first place[,] no document exist[s] to show
that the earnest money was given merely as guaranty that the complainant would not [back out]
from the transaction. Other than a mere photocopy of what he claims to be a written proposal of
the complainant purportedly indicating that the earnest money is not part of the purchase price,
respondent failed to present clear and convincing proof to support his claim.”

Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
reckoned from receipt of this Decision, with WARNING that a similar misconduct in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
2. Ruben Andaya v Atty. Emannuel A. Tumanda, A.C. No. 12209, Feb. 8, 2020

Facts:
On July 16, 2008, respondent borrowed from the complainant the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). In exchange for the said amount and in order to convince the
complainant to part with his money, the respondent issued a post-dated check of the same
amount dated July 31, 2008.

However, when the complainant deposited the check with the bank, it was dishonored for the
reason that the account was closed. Thus, the complainant, through counsel, sent a demand
letter to the respondent. To appease complainant, respondent offered as payment his Mercedes
Benz, and accordingly, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same in favor of
complainant. The respondent, however, failed to give the complainant the original copy of the
Certificate of Registration of the car on the pretext that he forgot to bring the same. Respondent
likewise did not turn over the physical possession of the car because he allegedly still needed it
for his business ventures.

The complainant later found out that the respondent sold the same car to a certain John Edwin
G. Felizardo. Thus, the complainant sent another demand letter to respondent, and thereafter,
filed criminal complaints for Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22 against him.

Issue/s: WON the act of issuing a worthless check is a violation of the CPR (Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03)

Ruling:
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating the aforementioned CPR provisions. Lawyers, as
guardians of the law, are mandated to obey and respect the laws of the land and to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. They should at all times, whether in their public or
private life, "conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility”. Thus they should not
engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

In this case, respondent obtained a loan from complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 and in
exchange thereof issued a worthless check to complainant. This fact alone is a ground for
disciplinary action as it constitutes gross misconduct. It indicates his unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed upon him and his lack of personal honesty and good moral character
rendering him unworthy of public confidence.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties
directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The
mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public.
The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a
thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.
The act is also aggravated by the fact that he attempted to pay off his debt by executing a deed
of sale over his Mercedes Benz when the same had already been sold to another. He has also
been using several addresses to avoid being traced and to evade his obligation to the
complainant. In fact, because of this, the IBP had to send copies of the Notice of Hearing to the
different addresses of the respondent as he could not be located. Such aberrant behavior of
respondent lays bare his lack of integrity and moral soundness.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings and ACCEPTS the recommendation of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant to SUSPEND respondent
Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) YEARS
effective upon finality of this Decision with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a
similar act would be dealt with more severely.
3. WALTER WILKIE vs. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS
A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008, J. Leonardo-De Castro

The Court have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been
drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence
reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her
unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the
remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public
interest and public order. It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath
she has taken when she joined her
peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high
esteem.
Facts:
Complainant Wilkie engaged the legal services of Respondent Limos regarding his intended
adoption of his wife’s nephew. Having full trust and confidence, Wilkie lent the amount of
PhP250,000.00 to his lawyer herein Limos, who, in turn, issued two (2) post dated checks
representing the principal amount and the interest in the amount of PhP60,000.00. However,
when the checks became due, the same were returned DAIF and in spite repeated demands to
make good on the checks, Limos failed to perform her obligation.
The IBP Board of Governors, acting on the Investigating Commissioner’s Report, found
Limos guilty of the accusation but, instead of imposing the recommended penalty of two-year
suspension, merely reprimanded the latter.
Upon transmittal of the records of the case to the Court, Limos finally made somewhat a
response to the accusation in the form of a letter wherein she asserts that Wilkie had already
executed an Affidavit of Desistance and she was actually an accommodation party as the
money loaned went to her other client, Hilario Inocencio, who failed to send her the funds to
cover the checks issued in favor of Wilkie.
Issue:
Whether or not Limos is guilty of grave misconduct in issuing the inadequately funded
checks.

Ruling:
Yes, Limos is liable and should be penalized for issuing the checks.
Limos did not deny that she obtained a loan with interest from Wilkie and her bare claim
that she was merely an accommodation party cannot be given credence and, indeed, too
specious to be believed.
The Court have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having
been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence
reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her
unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the
remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public
interest and public order. It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath
she has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the
profession she should hold in high esteem.
On another point, the reliance of Limos to the Affidavit of Desistance is misplaced. This is
because while Wilkie filed his Affidavit with the trial court handling the B.P. Blg. 22 case, he did
not do the same thing in this case. At any rate, the Court has consistently frowned upon the
desistance of complainants because of legal and jurisprudential injunction. Section 5, Rule 139-
B of the Rules of Court, is instructive on this matter, to wit:
Sec. 5. Service or dismissal…xxxx
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same.
Withal, an administrative sanction on Limos is warranted. The Court, though, disagrees with the
reprimand imposed by the IBP Board of Governors for being not commensurate to the gravity of
the wrong committed by Limos. In this case, Limos has fully paid her obligation to Wilkie, which
according to the receipts amounted to PhP400,000.00. The criminal cases filed by her erstwhile
client have been dismissed and this is the first time a complaint of such nature has been filed
against Limos. Under these circumstances, the Court rules and so holds that a suspen-sion of
three (3) months from the practice of law would be sufficient sanction on Limos.
4. In Re: Resolution, Atty. Jaime V. Lopez, A.C. No. 7986, July 27, 2021
Facts:
In 2000, Lopez was disbarred from the practice of law in the state of California in the United
States of America following the recommendation of the California State Bar Court, which issued
a Decision and Order of Involuntary Inactive Enrollment against him. His disbarment was due to
his mishandling of the settlement funds amounting to USD$25,000.00 for a bodily injury
settlement he received on behalf of a client.
Lopez was held administratively liable in the US for his failure, among others, to promptly notify
his client of funds received and failure to maintain client funds in trust account. In 1995, he
negotiated a bodily injury settlement with and received USD$25,000.00 settlement from Viking
Insurance Company of behalf of client, Jemuel C. Monte-Alegre. However, Lopez failed to
promptly notify his client of his receipt of said amount. In 1995, he deposited the settlement
amount into his client’s trust account at Wells Fargo Bank but did not disburse any portion of
this money to Monte- Alegre or to a lienholder on his behalf. Thus, the balance in the trust
account fell below USD$25,000.00, such that in 1996, the balance was overdrawn by
USD$2,047.53 and remained over overdrawn until it was closed on the same year. Likewise, he
also repeatedly issued checks from the Wells Fargo trust account even when he knew or should
have known that there were insufficient funds in the account.
The authority of our Supreme Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions
committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court Resolution. Recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment.
In the present case, the official copy of the decision from the Supreme Court of California is
sufficient proof of the judgment.
But while a foreign court’s judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer admitted in its
jurisdiction may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines, this is not
automatic as due process demands that lawyers disciplined in a foreign jurisdiction must be
given the opportunity to defend themselves and to present testimonial and documentary
evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court. Lopez was given due process.
Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondent’s act
in the US violate the standards of ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and
recommends for his disbarment.

Issue:
W/o the acts of the Lopez in the US as a member of the Philippine Bar violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility and if such acts needs judicial disciplinary action

Ruling:
The Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines that respondent’s act in the US violate the standards of ethical behavior for
members of the Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds for the imposition of disciplinary
penalty in this jurisdiction.

Respondent’s failure to notify his client of funds received, failure to maintain client’s fund in trust
account, and misappropriation of the same were equivalent to violations of Canon 16, Rules
16.01, 16.02, and 16.03. Canon 16 mandates a lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his or her client that may come into his profession. Both misappropriation and
misappropriation through issuance of bad checks may also be considered as violations of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct. His violations in the US corresponded to violations of Canon 7, Rule 7.03
which states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law.
Respondent Lopez used his address in Pasay City in the two motions for extension he filed.
Notices sent to the said Pasay address were returned unserved, prompting the Court to seek
the help of the NBI. During investigation, the NBI was told by the occupants of respondent’s
address in Pasay that he already passed away. In July 2005, the respondent’s secretary also
gave information that Lopez died in July 2005. The Court noted, however, that Lopez was able
to file his comment in April 2009, or almost four years after his alleged death in 2005. The NBI
found two more addresses of the respondent in Manila and Makati, and, subsequently, the
Court’s Resolutions were served to him in his Makati address.
The Court noted that when respondent filed his motions for extension and his Comment, he was
already aware that there were court proceedings that required his participation. However,
respondent chose to not participate and not notify the Court of his updated address,
notwithstanding repeated directives from this Court.
Considering the gravity of the offenses committed by respondent which merited his disbarment
in the state of California, exacerbated by his non- compliance with the directives from this Court,
the Court found proper the recommended penalty of the IBP Board of Governors.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jaime V. Lopez, having violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by committing unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct, and by willfully disregarding
the lawful processes of courts is DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF the
Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS V ESTANISLAO BAYOT, A.C. L-1117, MAR
20, 1944
FACTS:
The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which assured the prompt issuance of a
marriage license and a marriage arranged to the wishes of the parties through their assistance.
Respondent first denied having published the said advertisement but subsequently admitted
having caused its publication and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent acted in violation of the Code of Ethics which prohibits the
solicitation of legal business (Also provided in the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 2)

HELD:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of
the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25
of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with
mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most
worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer . . . is the establishment of
a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but
must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
The Court decided that the respondent should be reprimanded.
6. MICHELLE BUENAVENTURA V ATTY. DANNY GILLE, A.C. NO. 7446, DEC. 9, 2020
Facts:
Petition for Suspension and Disbarment Sometime in 2006, Michelle consulted Atty. Gille about
a property mortgaged to her.
Upon hearing her predicament, Atty. Gille offered his legal services to Michelle for
P25,000.00 to which the latter agreed. Subsequently, Atty. Gille borrowed P300,000.00 from
Michelle. As a collateral, Atty. Gille gave Michelle a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. N-272977which allegedly covered a 1,000- square meter land situated in Quezon City
worthP20 Million and a check postdated August 10, 2006 as payment for the principal
obligation. When Michelle and her father Adolfo went to the Register of Deeds
(RD) of Quezon City, they were surprised upon being informed by Atty. Elbert T. Quilala (Atty.
Quilala) of the RD Quezon City that the TCT was a forgery issued by a syndicate.
Michelle and Adolfo then demanded from Atty. Gille the return of the borrowed amount. During
their meeting that same day, respondent promised to pay on July 18, 2006. However, he failed
to pay on said date. Instead, he executeda promissory note acknowledging having issued a
check postdated August 10,2006, and promising to pay Michelle the outstanding amount on
September 10,2006. On its due date, Michelle deposited the check but it was
dishonored due to "Account Closed". As a result, she filed a criminal complaint for Estafa
against Atty. Gille before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Michelle likewise filed
the instant Petition for suspension or disbarment against respondent for allegedly
committing deceit, and gross immoral conduct in violation of his Lawyer's Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Gille is guilty of Gross Misconduct.

Ruling:
Yes. "Gross misconduct is defined as 'improper or wrong conduct, the transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. His utter disregard
for his bounden duties inscribed in the CPR is clearly manifested in the following
acts: (a) borrowing money from his client; (b)presenting a spurious title of a mortgaged
property; (c) refusing to pay his debt despite demand; (d) issuing a worthless check; and (e)
failing to comply with the orders of the IBP. His lack of honesty and good moral
character are evident and renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed upon
him by his clients. He is thus DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
from the Roll of Attorneys
7. Eduardo Manalang v Atty. Cristina B. Buendia, A.C. No. 12079, Nov. 10, 2020

FACTS:

A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia for allegedly deceiving
complainant Eduardo B. Manalang in connection with the latter's petition for nullity of his
marriage.

Sometime in 2011, Manalang engaged the services of Atty. Buendia for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage. Atty. Buendia told Manalang that the proceeding usually lasts from one (1) to
two (2) years, but with her services, it can be hastened to six (6) months to one (1) year.
Manalang hesitated at first, but Atty. Buendia assured him that everything was legal. Thus, an
agreement was made where Manalang would pay legal fees amounting to ₱275,000.00 plus
documentation and out of pocket expenses.

When Manalang followed up on the status of the case sometime in April 2012, Atty. Buendia
assured him that everything was going smoothly. On September 7, 2012, Atty. Buendia agreed
to meet Manalang in the office of one Atty. Neil. During the meeting, Manalang learned from
Atty. Buendia that Atty. Salazar was actually the one handling his case. He also found out that
his case was filed in Ballesteros, Cagayan. Atty. Buendia explained that she and Atty. Salazar
knew someone in Cagayan who can help them, and that they will get results by November 6,
2012. She also promised that she will update Manalang within 15 days, but never did.

It was only on April 15, 2013 that Atty. Buendia messaged Manalang that the annulment case
was finally resolved and the decision was already available. However, Manalang remained
doubtful of his case being filed because he was never furnished a copy of the decision. Atty.
Buendia initially refused, but when Manalang insisted, she hesitatingly gave him a copy of a
decision.

When Manalang inspected the decision, he observed that it contained fabricated details
regarding his marriage. He also noticed that the facts therein were different from what he had
narrated to Atty. Buendia. These made him doubt the veracity of the documents.

This made Manalang grow even more suspicious which is why he took it upon himself to go to
Ballesteros, Cagayan to find out the status of his case. There, he learned that there was
"absolutely no case filed for the dissolution of [his] marriage."

On June 27, 2014, Manalang filed a Complaint against Atty. Buendia before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.

Atty. Buendia moved for reconsideration, but it was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Buendia should be disbarred for her misrepresentations and for
deceiving her client?

RULING:
YES. Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment or
suspension of lawyers:

SECTION 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A

member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

The duty of a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect
for law and legal processes demands that he or she shall "not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Here, it is clear that respondent violated her sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility when she deliberately misled and deceived her client by
fabricating a court decision.
Respondent denies that she was engaged as counsel for complainant's nullity case and alleges
she only acted as an intermediary. Yet, respondent failed to present any evidence to support
her argument that it was indeed Atty. Tabbu whose services were engaged.
For her failure to uphold the standards required in the legal profession, respondent no longer
deserves to be a member of the bar. Not only did she fail to observe the duties of competence
and diligence required from lawyers, she also continuously deceived her client in utter disregard
of the duties and obligations required from a member of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia GUILTY of violating
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Eduardo B. Manalang, within 30 days from
notice, the sum of ₱270,000.00 with an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of the promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid. Respondent is further DIRECTED
to submit to this Court proof of her payment within 10 days therefrom.
8. Atty. Plaridel C Nava II v Atty. Ofelia M. D. Artuz, A.C. No. 7253, Feb 8, 20202

Facts:

In 2006, Atty. Nava II filed a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Artuz for violation of Canon 8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that enjoins lawyers to conduct hemselves
with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their colleagues in the profession, and for Grave
Misconduct and violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (RA 6713), docketed as A.C. No. 7253.

He claimed that he filed a Request for inhibition and Re-Raffle of his client's murder case before
the City Prosecutor's Office on the ground that he and the respondent, then a Prosecutor, are
not in good terms as they are adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases. In her
comment to his request, however, she willfully and viciously maligned, insulted, and scorned
him and his father, who is not a partyto the case. Furthermore, Atty. Nava II alleged that she
falsely and maliciously imputed a crime against him which were baseless and purely
conjectural, along with others, before the Department of Justice(DOJ), intended clearly to
harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate them, and maligned her former superior and colleague, City
Prosecutor Baldago.

During the pendency of the case, Atty. Artuz was appointed and subsequently took her Oath of
Office as Presiding Judge. Notwithstanding Atty. Nava II's written opposition. Thus, Atty. Nava II
filed a complaint-petition docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, seeking to nullify respondent's
appointment as judge. He alleged that Atty. Artuz is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as
ajudge as she faces "several criminal and administrative cases, the nature of which involves her
character, competence, probity, integrity and independence which should not have been
disregarded in her application to the judiciary.” Upon verifying that there are indeed pending
cases against respondent which she failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheets (PDS) dated
October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006, the Court directed her to show cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against her.

Issue:
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

Ruling:
Yes. respondent's untruthful statements in her PDS constitute breaches of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, Canon 7, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the CPR, all of which respectively read:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful act.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the integrated bar.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Furthermore, said misdemeanor likewise constitutes a contravention of Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, viz.:
Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly 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 to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. (Emphases supplied)
It cannot therefore be denied that Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official
Documents constitute grounds to disbar an attorney. In respondent's case, she was herein
found to have committed all of these grounds warranting her immediate disbarment as a
consequence.

Also, In this case, respondent's acts of calling Atty. Nava II and his father "barbaric, nomadic,
and outrageous" and baselessly imputing to Atty. Nava II the use of his alleged influence as the
godson of the City Prosecutor who, by virtue thereof, allegedly had the audacity to display "his
bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance" in an official pleading falls short of the conduct
being exhorted by Canon 8 to all members of the Bar. Verily, such use of intemperate language
and aspersions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. On this score, it must be
emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions such that a
lawyer's words and actions directly affect the public's opinion of the legal profession. Any
violation of these conditions exposes the lawyer to administrative liability, as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz (respondent) GUILTY of
violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, Rule 10.01
of Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. Accordingly, she is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and her
name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
9. RENE J. HIERRO vs ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II

This resolves the administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Rene J. Hierro
(Hierro) against respondent Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II (Atty. Nava) of violating Canons 7.03,
15.03, 17, 21.01 and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Hierro filed a letter-complaint for disbarment charging Atty. Nava of violating Canons 7.03,
15.03, 17, 21.01 and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through the following acts:
1. Conflict of interest on the part of Atty. Nava for acting as counsel for Annalyn Hierro
(Annalyn), Hierro's spouse, in her petition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
protection order (TPO) against Hierro before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City when
Hierro used to be a client of Atty. Nava;
2. Grossly immoral conduct for engaging in adulterous relations with Annalyn and
fathering a child with her; and
3. Dereliction of duty for abandoning Hierro as the latter's counsel in a case for Grave
Threats with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, after the filing of the petition which
resulted to Hierro's conviction.

Atty. Nava vehemently denied the allegations against him. On the allegation of conflict of
interest, Atty. Nava contends that he was compelled to sign the petition with prayer for the
issuance of a TPO out of exigency and for humanitarian consideration since prompt and
responsive action is needed to preserve the life of Annalyn and her three young daughters.
As to the allegation of grossly immoral conduct, Atty. Nava said that such allegation is a
mere afterthought and has no factual basis. As a matter of fact, the complaint for adultery
filed against him was dismissed by the investigating prosecutor as the latter found the case to
be without merit.
Regarding the allegation of abandonment of Hierro in his Grave Threats case which led to his
conviction, Atty. Nava vehemently denied such allegation saying it was Hierro who terminated
his services.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Nava should be disbarred considering the gravity of his offenses

RULING:
YES.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Particularly,
Canon 15.03 demands that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." A conflict of
interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two opposing parties, like
when the lawyer performs an act that will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represented him, or when the lawyer uses any knowledge he previously
acquired from his first client against the latter. The prohibition against conflict of interest is
founded on principles of public policy and good taste, inasmuch as the lawyer-client
relationship is based on trust and confidence.
Atty. Nava was the lawyer of Hierro in seven of the eight aforementioned cases. As defense
counsel for Hierro, Atty. Nava advocates the innocence of his client in these cases. However, in
citing these as part of the petition for the issuance of a TPO, in effect, he is implying that
there is merit in these cases which is diametrically opposed to his position as defense
counsel of Hierro. This clearly violates the rule against conflict of interest.
As for the gross immorality charge against Atty. Nava, a thorough review of the records
would show that there is merit to the said charge. In order to exculpate himself from any
liability, he highlights the dismissal of the complaint for adultery against him and Annalyn by the
Office of the Prosecutor. However, it must be noted that administrative cases are sui generis
and are not affected by the result of any civil or criminal case. The instant case, being
administrative in nature, may proceed independently and is not bound by the outcome of any
criminal and civil proceeding.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and
the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
allowed to practice law. Besides, as pointed out by the IBP, the dismissal by the Office of the
Prosecutor of the adultery case is not yet final and executory as it is still under appeal to the
Office of the Secretary of Justice.
Annalyn admitted to maintaining adulterous relations with Atty. Nava. It must be
emphasized that Annalyn's admission is not the only piece of evidence pointing to such fact.
Immoral conduct, or immorality, is that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
PENALTY: DISBARMENT
“Indeed, any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred even if the
misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long as the misconduct evinces his or her
lack of moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Every lawyer is expected to be
honorable and reliable at all times, for a person who cannot abide by the laws in his private life
cannot be expected to do so in his professional dealings."
10. RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED
“PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO”, FORMER ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the grounds for the suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer is his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. And with the
finality of respondent’s conviction for direct bribery, the next question that needs to be
answered is whether direct bribery is a crime that involves moral turpitude.
To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude, the act constituting the same must have
been “done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. [It must involve] an act
of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen,
or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
The crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. In Magno v.
COMELEC, we ruled:
‘By applying for probation, petitioner in effect admitted all the elements of the crime of direct
bribery:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or
through another;
3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public
officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing
something which it is his official duty to do; and
4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with
the performance of his official duties.

Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element. The fact that the offender agrees to
accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an
official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the
offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general.
Also, fee fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and position is a betrayal of
the trust reposed on him by the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of
right and duty, justice, honesty and good morals.

Clearly, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude which, as mentioned, is a ground for
the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer from his office as an attorney.
However, the Court is mindful that a lawyer’s conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
does not automatically call for the imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment since it may,
in its discretion, choose to impose the less severe penalty of suspension.

ISSUE:
W/N respondent should be disbarred on the ground of moral turpitude for the crime of direct
bribery considering the circumstances of the case

RULING:
YES.
At the time of the commission of the crime, respondent was an Assistant Public Prosecutor of
the City of Dagupan. His act therefore of extorting money from a party to a case handled by him
does not only violate the requirement that cases must be decided based on the merits of the
parties’ respective evidence but also lessens the people’s confidence in the rule of law.
Indeed respondent’s conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character
required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are
expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper
of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his
brethren in private practice.
Hence, for committing a crime which does not only show his disregard of his oath as a
government official but is likewise of such a nature as to negatively affect his qualification as a
lawyer

PENALTY: respondent must be disbarred from his office as an attorney.

11. De Jesus - Paras vs Vailoces
A.C. No. 439, April 12, 1961

FACTS:
As a member of the bar and capacity as a notary public, Atty. Quinciano Vailoces
acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of
one Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. The will was impugned by de Jesus’ surviving spouse and
daughter arguing that the will was a product of forgery. Vailoces was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of falsification of public document. As a consequence, the
offended party instituted the present disbarment proceedings. Vailoces pleads that the
complaint against him be dismissed as he contends that the charge was motivated by sheer
vindictiveness, malice, and spite on the part of the complainant and that allowing such charge
would tantamount to placing him in double jeopardy.

ISSUE
Whether or not Vailoces may be disbarred following his conviction for the crime of falsification
of public document

HELD
Yes. Under Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as attorney if it appears that he has been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes any act deemed contrary to justice,
honesty, or good morals. Since Vailoces was convicted of a crime of falsification of public
document which involves moral turpitude, he rendered himself amenable to disbarment under
the mentioned rule.
With regard to his claims of double jeopardy, the same cannot be had. Such defense can
only be availed of when he is placed in the predicament of being prosecuted for the same
offense, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
necessary included. Neither of which is the case here.
12. In re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero. A.C. No. 126 October 24, 1952
Tranquilino Rovero in his own behalf.

Facts:
The Solicitor General has filed the present complaint for disbarment against Atty. Tranquilino
Rovero, on the grounds:
-for having been found in a final decision rendered by then Insular Collector of Customs to have
violated the customs law by fraudulently concealing a dutiable importation, was fined in an
amount equal to three times the customs duty due on a piece of jewelry which he omitted to
declare and which was subsequently found to be concealed in his wallet, and
-was also convicted of smuggling by final decision of the CA, affirming a judgment of the CFI
sentencing him to pay a fine of Php. 2,500 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
said case involving a fraudulent practice against customs revenue, as defined and penalized by
section 2703 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The respondents admits the existence of the decision of the Collector of Customs and his
conviction by the C, but sets up the defense that they are not sufficient to disqualify him from the
practice of law, especially because the acts of which he was found guilty, while at most merely
discreditable, had been committed by him as an individual and not in pursuance or in the
exercise of his legal profession.

Ruling
Under section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as attorney for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
and this ground is apart from any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office as
lawyer. Moral turpitude includes any act done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.

Respondent’s conviction of smuggling by final decision of the CA certainly involves an

act done contrary at least to honesty or good morals. The ground invoked by the Solicitor
General is aggravated by the fact that the respondent sought to defraud not merely a private
person, but the Government.

Wherefore, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero is disbarred from the practice of law, and he is
hereby directed to surrender to this Court his lawyer’s certificate within 10 days after this
resolution shall have become final.
13. A.C. No. 11256, March 07, 2017
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA,
Complainant v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent
.
Facts:
In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent in his law office
in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her
husband, Juan C. Madria. The respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed
that he could obtain for her the decree of annulment. He told her, too, that his legal services
would cost P25,000.00.

After paying his legal services, respondent advised her to just wait for the resolution of her
complaint, and assured her that she did not need to appear in court. He explained that all the
court notices and processes would be sent to his office, and that he would regularly apprise her
of the developments.

In the latter part of April 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had
been granted. The complainant, through her daughter Vanessa, received from the respondent
a copy of the certificate of finality dated September 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao of
the RTC (Branch 4).

Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and
certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of her passport.However, she became the object
of an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner,
Andrew Dowson Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for
the annulment of her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of
finality given by the respondent did not exist in the court records,

Respondent averred that petitioner had prevailed upon him to simulate the court decision to the
effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of finality; that she
had assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential.

IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala concluded that the respondent had violated his
Lawyer's Oath; and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two
years. The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation of suspension from the
practice of law for two years to disbarment.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Rivera is guilty of the charges.

Held:
YES.
Respondent`s deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of finality of the
decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.

The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and
Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
.
Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath
to " do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission." Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession
rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play
and nobility in the course of his practice of law. Members of the Bar are expected to always live
up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship
between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and
good faith.

Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required
the respondent be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of getting her money, he committed a further violation of his Lawyer's
Oath by which he swore not to " delay any man's cause for money or malice," and to " conduct
[him]self 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 compounded this violation by taking advantage of his
legal knowledge to promote his own selfish motives, thereby disregarding his responsibility
under Canon 17.

The moral standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the highest
degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their practice of law.

It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most
imperative reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. The test is whether the conduct
shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and
whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.
14. [ A.C. No. 8522, October 06, 2020 ]

TEODORO L. CANSINO and EMILIO L. CANSINO, JR., Complainants, VS. ATTY. VICTOR
D. SEDERIOSA, Respondent.

This administrative case arose from a Joint Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment filed by Teodoro
L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. (complainants) against Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa (Atty.
Sederiosa) for conspiring in the execution and notarization of fictitious and simulated
documents.

FACTS

Complainants alleged that Atty. Sederiosa was a friend and law school classmate of
their brother Paulino Cansino. They claimed that Atty. Sederiosa notarized spurious documents
despite the death of their parents and/or the non-personal appearance of the affiants. In a
Report and Recommendation the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Sederiosa liable for
the acts complained of and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period
of one year and the revocation of his notarial commission during the period thereof.
On October 11, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXI-2014-783
adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modifying the recommended
penalties in the wise: Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa's notarial commission if presently commissioned
is immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary
Public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.

On February 9, 2016, Atty. Sederiosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP BOG.
He averred that he received a copy of the IBP's October 11, 2014 Resolution only on January
29, 2016. Also, he sought for the reexamination of its findings and the reduction of the penalty
imposed upon him.

Meanwhile, complainant Emilio, Jr. filed before this Court a Manifestation and Motion with
Notice of Change of Address of Counsel informing this High Court that despite the Court's
December 7, 2015 Resolution suspending Atty. Sederiosa from the practice of law, the
revocation of his notarial practice and disqualification from being commissioned as notary
public, he has continuously engaged in the practice of law and has remained to be a duly
commissioned notary public.

Atty. Sederiosa, in turn, submitted a Manifestation stressing that he did not violate the
suspension order of the High Court. He claimed that he did not officially receive a copy of this
Court's December 7, 2015. He also stressed out that the only copy of a resolution that he
received was the October 11, 2014 Resolution of the IBP to which he timely filed a motion for
reconsideration which remained unresolved.

The OBC found Atty. Sederiosa's Motion for Reconsideration without merit. It noted that
contrary to his claim, Atty. Sederiosa duly received the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution on
January 29, 2016 as shown in the Registry Return Receipt. Hence, the OBC recommended that
Atty. Sederiosa be further suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and be
permanently disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

ISSUE

whether Atty. Sederiosa is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during his
suspension, and for notarizing documents despite the revocation of his notarial commission,
and for being commissioned as notary public notwithstanding his disqualification.

RULING

In an attempt to evade any liability, Atty. Sederiosa lamentably resorted to lies when he denied
receipt of the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution suspending him from the law practice,
revoking his notarial commission and disqualifying him from being commissioned as such.

The issue of whether Atty. Sederiosa engaged in the practice of law during the period of his
suspension. The Court rules in the affirmative.

The regulation of the practice of law falls upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. As
such, a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law by the Court must refrain from
performing all functions which would require the application of his legal knowledge within the
period of suspension. The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It comprises the
performance of acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of
service which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

Guided by the foregoing on what constitutes a practice of law, it is beyond cavil that notarizing
of documents constitutes a practice of law. In fact, one of the requirements to be a duly
commissioned notary public is that he/she must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing. Pertinently, Section 1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

There is more than enough evidence that shows that Atty. Sederiosa has continuously been
practicing his legal profession despite the suspension order against him. He remained to be a
duly commissioned notary public from January 8, 2016 to December 31, 2017 as attested by the
Certification from the RTC - Davao City, the Commission for Notary Public dated January 8,
2016, and the Affidavit of Loss dated August 8, 2016 which he duly notarized. In short, he had
never served his suspension.

Atty. Sederiosa likewise trampled upon the ethical standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His actuations amounted to gross deceit and malpractice, or gross
misconduct. Furthermore, the fact that Atty. Sederiosa actively engaged in notarial practice
despite revocation of his commission is indisputably contemptuous.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for TWO (2) YEARS, on top of the ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION previously imposed
upon him. His current notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED. Atty. Sederiosa is
PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from acting as notary public.