Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A. Medado, B.M. No.

2540,
September 24, 2013
Case Summary (B.M. No. 2540)

Background of the Case

 The case involves a lawyer named Michael A. Medado who petitioned to be
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys after years of practicing law without
doing so.
 Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with a Bachelor of
Laws degree in 1979 and passed the bar examinations that same year. 
 However, he failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on his scheduled date in 1980
because he had misplaced the notice to do so and went to the province for a
vacation.

Discovery of the Mistake

 Several years later, Medado found the notice and realized that he had not signed
in the roll.
 He had been working as a lawyer, mainly in corporate and taxation work, and
believed that signing in the Roll of Attorneys was not urgent or crucial to his
status as a lawyer.
 In 2005, when he attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seminars, he was unable to provide his roll number because he had not signed
in the Roll of Attorneys.

Petition and Recommendation

 In 2012, Medado filed a petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant conducted a conference and recommended
that the petition be denied due to Medado's gross negligence and lack of
merit.

Supreme Court Decision

 After reviewing the records, the Supreme Court granted Medado's petition,
subject to the payment of a fine and a penalty equivalent to suspension from
the practice of law.
 The court noted that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would
be similar to disbarment, which is reserved for serious ethical transgressions. 
 The court found that Medado had demonstrated good faith and good moral
character by acknowledging his mistake and filing the petition himself. 
 He had also not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice
of law, indicating his adherence to ethical requirements.
 The court also recognized Medado's competence as a legal practitioner, as
evidenced by his work experience.’

Liability for Unauthorized Practice of Law

 However, the court could not fully exculpate Medado from liability for his years
of inaction.
 While he may have initially operated under an honest mistake of fact, once he
realized his error, he should have known that he was not a full -fledged member
of the Philippine Bar.
 By continuing to practice law without taking the necessary steps to complete the
requirements for admission to the Bar, he engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law.

1|Page
Penalty Imposed
 The court refrained from making a finding of liability for indirect contempt but
noted that knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law violated Canon 9
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted suspension from the practice of
law, but since Medado was not yet a full-fledged lawyer, the court imposed a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one
year after receipt of the resolution.
 He was also fined P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law.
 During the one-year period, Medado was not allowed to practice law, and he was
warned that any act constituting the practice of law before signing in the Roll of
Attorneys would be severely dealt with by the court.

Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September
24, 2013
Case Digest (B.M. No. 2540)

Facts:

 Michael A. Medado graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the

University of the Philippines in 1979.
 He passed the bar examinations the same year with a general weighted average
of 82.7.
 On May 7, 1980, Medado took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC).
 He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980, but failed to
do so because he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the
Bar Office.
 Medado discovered the notice years later while going through his old college
files, realizing he had not signed the roll.
 By then, he was already working in corporate and taxation law and deemed
signing the roll as not urgent.
 In 2005, during Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was
required to provide his roll number, which he could not because he had not
signed the roll.
 On February 6, 2012, Medado filed a petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended denying the petition due to
gross negligence and misconduct.
 The Supreme Court granted Medado's petition, subject to a fine and a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Issue:
 Should Michael A. Medado be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys despite his
failure to do so for over 30 years?
 What penalty, if any, should be imposed on Medado for his unauthorized
practice of law?

Ruling:

 Yes, Michael A. Medado is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

 Medado is fined P32,000 and is not allowed to practice law for one year from the receipt
of the resolution.

2|Page
Ratio:

 The Supreme Court noted that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys would be akin to disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious
ethical transgressions.
 Medado demonstrated good faith and moral character by filing the petition
himself, acknowledging his lapse after more than 30 years.
 He had not been subject to any disqualification actions and had adhered to the
ethics of the profession.
 Medado had held various legal positions, demonstrating his competence.
 However, the Court could not fully exculpate him from liability for his inaction.
 While an honest mistake of fact could excuse his initial failure, his continued
practice of law without signing the roll constituted unauthorized practice. 
 The Court refrained from finding him liable for indirect contempt due to the
lack of formal charges but noted that his actions violated Canon 9 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 The Court imposed a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign the roll
one year after the resolution and fined him P32,000.
 Medado was sternly warned against practicing law during the one-year period.

Panote: A lawyer who failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys because of negligence
after passing the bar exams is granted permission to do so by the Supreme Court, but
is penalized for unauthorized practice of law.

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No.
1678, December 17,2007
Case Summary (G.R. No. 128058)

Background of the Case

 Benjamin M. Dacanay, a Filipino lawyer, lost his citizenship and became a

Canadian citizen.
 He migrated to Canada in 1998 for medical treatment and became a Canadian
citizen in 2004.
 In 2006, he reacquired his Filipino citizenship and now intends to resume his
law practice in the Philippines.

Main Issue

 The main issue is whether Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship.

Opinion of the Office of the Bar Confidant

 The Office of the Bar Confidant opined that by reacquiring his Philippine
citizenship, Dacanay has again met all the qualifications and has none of the
disqualifications for membership in the bar.
 They recommended that he be allowed to resume the practice of law, subject to
certain conditions.

3|Page
Supreme Court's Decision

 The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Bar
Confidant with modifications.
 They emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions and that it is the duty of the State to control and regulate it to protect
the public welfare.
 They cited the requirement that any person admitted as a member of the
Philippine bar must be a citizen of the Philippines and in good and regular
standing.

Loss of Filipino Citizenship and Membership in the Philippine Bar

 The Court clarified that the loss of Filipino citizenship terminates membership
in the Philippine bar and the privilege to practice law.
 However, there is an exception for Filipino lawyers who become citizens of
another country but subsequently reacquire their Filipino citizenship.
 In such cases, they are deemed never to have lost their Philippine citizenship
and their membership in the Philippine bar is also deemed not to have been
terminated.

Conditions for Resuming Law Practice

 To resume law practice, a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship must

comply with certain conditions.
 These conditions include updating and paying the annual membership dues in
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), paying the professional tax,
completing at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education,
and retaking the lawyer's oath.
 Compliance with these conditions will restore the lawyer's good standing as a
member of the Philippine bar.

Conclusion

 The Supreme Court granted Dacanay's petition to resume the practice of law,
subject to compliance with the specified conditions and submission of proof of
such compliance to the Bar Confidant.

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No.
1678, December 17,2007
Case Digest (G.R. No. 128058)
Facts:

 Benjamin M. Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.

 He practiced law until December 1998 when he migrated to Canada for medical
reasons.
 To benefit from Canada's free medical aid program, he applied for and was
granted Canadian citizenship in May 2004.
 On July 14, 2006, Dacanay reacquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic
Act (RA) 9225 by taking an oath of allegiance at the Philippine Consulate
General in Toronto, Canada.

4|Page
  Upon returning to the Philippines, Dacanay sought to resume his law practice.
 The issue arose whether he lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant, in a report dated October 16, 2007, cited
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the requirements for
admission to the bar, including Philippine citizenship.
 The Office opined that Dacanay, having reacquired his Philippine citizenship,
met all the qualifications for bar membership and recommended that he be
allowed to resume his law practice, subject to retaking the lawyer's oath.

Issue:

1. Did Benjamin M. Dacanay lose his membership in the Philippine bar when he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004?
2. Can Dacanay resume his law practice in the Philippines after reacquiring his
Filipino citizenship under RA 9225?

Ruling:

1. Yes, Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he
became a Canadian citizen.
2. Yes, Dacanay can resume his law practice in the Philippines after reacquiring
his Filipino citizenship, subject to certain conditions.

Ratio:
 The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions and is delicately affected by public interest.
 The Constitution limits the practice of all professions in the Philippines to
Filipino citizens, except as prescribed by law.
 Therefore, loss of Filipino citizenship terminates membership in the Philippine
bar and the privilege to practice law.
 Under RA 9225, a Filipino who becomes a citizen of another country and
subsequently reacquires Filipino citizenship is deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship.
 Consequently, a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 is
deemed never to have terminated their bar membership.
 However, the right to resume law practice is not automatic.
 The lawyer must secure authority from the Supreme Court, conditioned on
updating and paying annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), paying the professional tax, completing at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal education, and retaking the lawyer's oath.
 These conditions ensure the lawyer's good standing and adherence to the legal
profession's standards.
 The Court granted Dacanay's petition, subject to compliance with these
conditions and submission of proof to the Bar Confidant, after which he may
retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.

5|Page
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, June 17, 1993)
Case Summary (B.M. No. 553)

Case Background and Ruling

 The case of Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc. involves a dispute over the practice of law
and the advertising of legal services.
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
and restrained the Legal Clinic, Inc. from publishing advertisements that
violated the rules and regulations governing the practice of law. 
 The activities advertised by the company were deemed to constitute the practice
of law, and the advertisements were found to violate ethical standards. 

Definition of the Practice of Law

 The Court defined the practice of law as any activity, in or out of court, that
requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training, and
experience.
 It includes giving legal advice and counsel, preparing legal instruments and
contracts, and appearing before public tribunals.
 The practice of law is not limited to court appearances but extends to legal
research, giving legal advice, and contract drafting.

Services Offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc.

 The Court found that the services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised,
constituted the practice of law.
 The company's claim that it only offered legal support services was not
considered valid.
 The advertisements gave the impression that the company was offering legal
services, and its name, "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," further reinforced this
impression.
 The company provided legal information to laymen and lawyers, which involved
explaining the intricacies of the law and advising clients on the proper course of
action.
 These activities fell within the definition of the practice of law.

Prohibition on Non-Licensed Individuals

 The Court rejected the argument that the company's services could be
performed by paralegals.
 It emphasized that in the Philippines, only licensed attorneys can engage in the
practice of law.
 The Court also noted that the company's advertisements, which included a
quotation of fees for services rendered, did not fall under any exceptions to the
prohibition on advertising legal services.

Ethical Standards for Lawyers and Advertising Legal Services

 The Court discussed the ethical standards for lawyers and the prohibition on
advertising legal services.
 It emphasized that the best advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
 The standards of the legal profession condemn the advertisement of a
lawyer's talents or skills.
 Exceptions to this prohibition include brief biographical and informative data
published in reputable law lists and the use of a simple professional card.

6|Page
Conclusion and Court's Decision
 The Court ruled that the services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc. constituted the
practice of law, and the advertisements violated ethical standards. 
 The company was restrained from publishing similar advertisements, and
persons or entities were prohibited from making advertisements pertaining to
the practice of law, except as allowed by law.
 The court reprimands the lawyer who is the prime incorporator and proprietor
of the corporation, with a warning of more severe consequences for any
repetition of the same or similar acts.
 The issue of the legality or illegality of the corporation's purpose is referred to
the Solicitor General for further action.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, June 17, 1993)
Case Digest (B.M. No. 553)

Facts:
 Petitioner: Mauricio C. Ulep
 Respondent: The Legal Clinic, Inc.
 Issue: Restraining The Legal Clinic, Inc. from publishing advertisements.
 Advertisements: Services such as secret marriages, divorce information,
annulment, and visa assistance.
 Petitioner's Argument: Advertisements were unethical, demeaning to the legal
profession, and destructive of public confidence in the integrity of the bar.
 Respondent's Defense: Claimed it was providing "legal support services"
through paralegals and modern technology, not practicing law.
 Supreme Court Involvement: Required several bar associations to submit
position papers on the controversy.

Issue:
 Do the services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised, constitute the
practice of law?
 Can the services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc. be properly advertised?
Ruling:
 Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.
 Action: Restrained and enjoined The Legal Clinic, Inc. from issuing or causing
the publication or dissemination of any similar advertisements.
 Reprimand: Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, the prime incorporator and major
stockholder, was reprimanded and warned against repeating the same or similar
acts.
Ratio:
 Definition of Practice of Law: Any activity requiring the application of legal
knowledge, training, and experience, including legal advice, preparation of legal
instruments, and representation before public tribunals.
 Court's Finding: The services advertised by The Legal Clinic, Inc. involved legal
advice and were within the scope of legal practice.
 Protection of Public: The practice of law should be limited to those duly
qualified and admitted to the bar to protect the public from incompetence and
dishonesty.
 Ethical Standards: The advertisements violated ethical standards as they were
misleading, undignified, and encouraged acts contrary to law and public policy. 
 Code of Professional Responsibility: Prohibits lawyers from using false,
misleading, or self-laudatory statements in advertisements.
 Nature of Legal Profession: The practice of law is a profession, not a trade, and
should not be advertised like commercial goods and services. 
Panote: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
and restrained a legal support services company from publishing advertisements that
violated the rules and regulations governing the practice of law, as the activities
advertised by the company were deemed to constitute the practice of law and the
advertisements violated ethical standards.

7|Page
 Atty. Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C No. 6672, September 4, 2009
Case Summary (A.C. No. 6672)

Parties Involved and Allegations

 Pedro Linsangan filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino.
 Linsangan alleged that Tolentino, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
solicited his clients and convinced them to transfer legal representation by
promising financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. 
 Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio, who attested to
Labiano's attempt to persuade him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
Linsangan and utilize Tolentino's services instead, in exchange for a loan of
P50,000.
 Linsangan also presented a calling card bearing Tolentino's name and contact
information, which indicated that his law office offered financial assistance. 

Defense and Referral to the Commission on Bar Discipline

 Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the calling card.
 The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

Findings of the CBD

 Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD found that Tolentino
had encroached on Linsangan's professional practice, violating Rule 8.02 and
other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Violations of Professional Responsibility

 The court adopted the findings of the IBP on Tolentino's unethical conduct but
modified the recommended penalty.
 Lawyers should not advertise their talents like merchants advertise their wares.
 Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, and such
act constitutes malpractice.
 Tolentino's actions of soliciting clients and profiting from referrals' suits
violated Rule 2.03 and Rule 1.03, which aim to protect the community from
barratry and champerty.
 Tolentino also violated Rule 8.02 for encroaching on Linsangan's legal practice.
 Tolentino violated Rule 16.04 by engaging in a money-lending venture with his
clients.

Penalty Imposed
 Considering Tolentino's numerous infractions, the court deemed the
recommended penalty of a mere reprimand to be insufficient.
 Tolentino was suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective
immediately.
 He was also sternly warned that any repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future would be dealt with more severely.
 Issue of the Calling Card
 Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services through reputable law lists
or simple professional cards.
 Labiano's calling card, which contained the phrase "with financial assistance,"
was deemed to be used to entice clients to change counsels with the promise of
loans.
 The court did not find substantial evidence to directly link Tolentino to the
printing and distribution of the calling cards.

8|Page
Conclusion
 Tolentino was suspended from the practice of law for one year and warned of
more severe consequences for any future similar acts.
 The court emphasized the importance of upholding the nobility of the legal
profession and protecting the public from unscrupulous lawyers. 

Atty. Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C No. 6672, September 4, 2009

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6672)

Facts:
 Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a
disbarment complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino.
 The complaint, dated September 4, 2009, alleged that Tolentino, with the help of
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, solicited clients from Linsangan's law office and
encroached on his professional services.
 It was claimed that Tolentino and Labiano convinced Linsangan's clients to
transfer their legal representation to Tolentino by promising financial assistance
and faster claim collections.
 Linsangan supported his complaint with a sworn affidavit from James Gregorio,
who testified that Labiano offered him a PHP 50,000 loan to switch legal
representation to Tolentino.
 Linsangan also provided a calling card from Tolentino's office that advertised
consultancy and maritime services with financial assistance.
 Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the calling card.
 The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
 The CBD found that Tolentino had encroached on Linsangan's professional
practice and violated several rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) and the Rules of Court.
 The CBD recommended a reprimand with a stern warning for Tolentino.
 The Supreme Court modified the penalty to a one-year suspension from the
practice of law.

Issue:
 Did Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino solicit clients from Pedro Linsangan's law office
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court? 
 Did Tolentino engage in unethical conduct by promising financial assistance to
clients to induce them to switch legal representation?
 Was Tolentino responsible for the printing and distribution of the calling card
that advertised his services with financial assistance?

Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino solicited clients from Pedro Linsangan's law
office, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 
 Yes, Tolentino engaged in unethical conduct by promising financial assistance
to clients to induce them to switch legal representation.
 The Court did not find substantial evidence to prove that Tolentino was
personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of the
calling card.

Ratio:
 The Supreme Court found that Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino violated several
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of
Court.
 Tolentino's actions constituted a breach of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, which prohibits
lawyers from encroaching on the professional practice of another lawyer. 

9|Page
  The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business, and lawyers should not advertise their services in a manner that
commercializes the profession.
 Tolentino's promise of financial assistance to induce clients to switch legal
representation was found to be a violation of Rule 2.03, which prohibits lawyers
from soliciting legal business for gain.
 Additionally, Tolentino's engagement in a money-lending venture with his
clients violated Rule 16.04, which prohibits lawyers from lending money to
clients except in specific circumstances.
 The Court noted that such actions could compromise a lawyer's independence
and fidelity to the client's cause.
 Although the Court did not find substantial evidence to prove that Tolentino
was directly responsible for the printing and distribution of the calling card, it
held that Tolentino's overall conduct warranted a more severe penalty than the
reprimand recommended by the IBP.
 Consequently, the Court suspended Tolentino from the practice of law for one
year and sternly warned him against repeating similar acts in the future. 

Aba, et.al. v. Atty. De Guzman, et. al., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011
Case Digest (A.C. No. 7649)

The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline found that the
charges against the Respondent Trinidad and Fornier are deemed to be without basis
and consequently, the undersigned recommends DISMISSAL of the charges against
them. However, as to Respondent de Guzman, a former Regional Trial Court Judge,
there is enough basis to hold him administratively liable.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioners Report and Recommendation on
the dismissal of the charges against Fornier and Trinidad.In De Guzmans case, the
Board of Governors increased the penalty from a suspension of two (2) months to a
suspension of two (2) years from the practice of law for his attempt to file illegal
recruitment cases to extort money.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Trinidad, Fornier and De Guzman should be administratively
disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint?

HELD:
Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner on the dismissal of the charges against Trinidad and
Fornier is adopted.

Decision of the Board of Governors and the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner with regard to De Guzman's liability is reversed, and
likewise dismiss the charges against De Guzman.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: administrative law; attorneys

Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that a person is presumed
innocent of crime or wrongdoing. This Court has consistently held that an attorney
enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the
contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have
performed his duties in accordance with his oath.

Burden of proof, on the other hand, is defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as the duty of a
party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law. In disbarment proceedings, the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its

10 | P a g e
disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by
convincing and satisfactory proof. REMEDIAL LAW: evidence

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is
preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and
circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of
witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the
greater number.

When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden
of proof, according to the equipoise doctrine.

• Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, adopting
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

• Charges against Attys. Wenceslao "Peewee" Trinidad and Andresito Fornier is

DISMISSED.

• Decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

modifying and increasing the penalty in the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner is REVERSED.

• Charges against Atty. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. is DISMISSED

Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., AC No. 11981, July 13, 2018
Case Summary (A.C. No. 11981)

Background of the Case

 The case involves Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. who was disbarred for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The case revolves around the nullification of marriage of Leah B. Taday, an
overseas Filipino worker (OFW) staying in Norway.
 Taday asked her parents in the Philippines to seek legal services for the
nullification of her marriage, and they hired Apoya as their lawyer.

Assurances and Actions of Atty. Apoya

 Apoya assured Taday that her absence in Norway would not be an issue and
that he could push for the resolution of the case.
 He drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage and sent it to Taday for her
signature.
 After notarizing the petition, Apoya filed it before the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City.
Suspicion and Discovery of Fake Decision
 On November 17, 2011, while Taday was on vacation in the Philippines, Apoya
delivered a Decision dated November 16, 2011, which granted the annulment of
Taday's marriage.
 Taday became suspicious as the decision came from a different branch and
judge than the one where the case was originally filed.

11 | P a g e
  Upon verification, it was discovered that the branch and judge mentioned in the
decision did not exist.
Attempted Withdrawal and Engagement of New Lawyer
 Taday and her parents sought the withdrawal of Apoya as their counsel, but
instead of withdrawing, Apoya filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition.
 The motion was granted, and the case was dropped from the civil docket of the
court.
 Taday then sought the legal services of another lawyer, Atty. Alexander M.
Verzosa, who confronted Apoya regarding the payment of attorney's fees and
the fake decision.
Findings and Recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
 The IBP found that Apoya violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
notarizing a document without the presence of the affiant and authoring a fake
decision.
 The IBP recommended a penalty of two years suspension, but the IBP Board of
Governors modified it to disbarment.
Motions for Reconsideration and Supreme Court Decision
 Apoya filed motions for reconsideration, but they were denied.
 The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP and agreed with the
recommendation of disbarment.
 The Court found that Apoya violated the notarial rules by notarizing a
document without the personal presence of the affiant and authored a fake
decision.
 The Court concluded that Apoya's acts constituted violations of Canon 1, Rules
1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 2,
Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Penalty Imposed and Conclusion
 Considering the gravity of Apoya's violations and the harm caused to his client,
the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment.
 Apoya's name was ordered to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately.

Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 13, 2018
Case Digest (A.C. No.11981)

Facts:
 Leah B. Taday, an OFW in Norway, hired Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. through her
parents to nullify her marriage.
 A Retainer Agreement was signed on April 17, 2011, with an acceptance fee of
PHP 140,000.00 to be paid in installments.
 Atty. Apoya assured Taday that her absence from the Philippines would not
affect the case.
 He drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage dated April 20, 2011, and
claimed to have sent it to Taday for her signature.
 After notarizing the petition, he filed it before the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch
131, docketed as Civil Case No. C-22813.
 On November 17, 2011, while Taday was in the Philippines, Atty. Apoya
delivered a decision dated November 16, 2011, allegedly granting the
annulment.
 The decision, supposedly from Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC Branch
162, was suspicious due to its poor quality and the non-existence of the judge
and branch.
 Taday discovered the decision was fake upon verification.
 Her parents requested Atty. Apoya's withdrawal from the case, but he instead
filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition, which was granted by RTC
Branch 131 on June 25, 2012.
 Taday then hired Atty. Alexander M. Verzosa, who confronted Atty. Apoya about
the fake decision and attorney's fees.

12 | P a g e
  Atty. Apoya denied all allegations, claiming ignorance of Taday's OFW status
and denying the delivery of any decision.
 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Apoya guilty of several
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his
disbarment, which was upheld by the IBP Board of Governors and the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. violate the Code of Professional Responsibility
by notarizing a document without the presence of the affiant?
 Did Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. author a fake decision to deceive his client, Leah
B. Taday?
Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
by notarizing a document without the presence of the affiant.
 Yes, Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr. authored a fake decision to deceive his client,
Leah B. Taday.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline and the IBP Board of Governors.
 Atty. Apoya violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
 Notarization is a significant act requiring the personal presence of the
signatory, which Atty. Apoya ignored by notarizing the petition without Taday's
presence.
 Clear and convincing evidence showed Atty. Apoya authored a fake decision to
deceive Taday into believing her annulment case was resolved.
 The fake decision had identical grammatical errors and formatting to the
petition he drafted.
 When confronted, Atty. Apoya filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition,
leading to the case being dropped from the court's docket.
 His actions were deemed unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, undermining public
confidence in the legal system.
 Consequently, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of disbarment, striking
Atty. Apoya's name from the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.

Flordeliza A. Madria v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, AC No. 11256, March 7, 2017

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11256)

Case Background and Parties Involved

 The case of Madria v. Rivera involves Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, who was disbarred
for simulating court documents in an annulment case.
 Complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent in his law office in
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to inquire about the process of annulling her
marriage.
Fabrication of Court Documents
 Atty. Rivera assured the complainant that she had a strong case and guaranteed
that he could obtain the decree of annulment for her.
 The complainant made payments and followed up on the case with the
respondent.
 The respondent eventually provided the complainant with a copy of the trial
court's decision and certificate of finality, claiming that her petition had been
granted.
 However, the complainant later discovered that these documents were
fabricated, as the court records showed that the case had been dismissed and
the judge's signature on the alleged decision was a forgery.

13 | P a g e
Investigation and Recommendation
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation and found
that the respondent had violated his Lawyer's Oath.
 The IBP initially recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law,
but the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation to disbarment.
 The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board
of Governors and ordered the disbarment of the respondent.

Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Ethical Canons

 The Court held that the respondent's simulation of court documents reflected a
high degree of moral turpitude and made a mockery of the administration of
justice.
 The respondent's actions violated the Lawyer's Oath and the ethical canons of
the legal profession.
 The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers acting with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fairness, and nobility in their practice of law.
 The respondent's previous sanction for unprofessional conduct further
demonstrated his lack of moral character and dishonesty.

Grounds for Disbarment and Decision

 The Court concluded that the respondent's misconduct warranted disbarment
under Section 27 of the Rules of Court, which provides grounds for disbarment
including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral
conduct, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
 The Court exercised its power to disbar with caution but found that the
respondent's gross misconduct justified his removal from the legal profession.
 The decision was immediately executory, and copies were furnished to various
offices for dissemination and possible criminal prosecution of the respondent.

Flordeliza A. Madria v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, AC No. 11256, March 7, 2017

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11256)

Facts:
 Flordeliza A. Madria engaged Atty. Carlos P. Rivera in November 2002 to annul
her marriage.
 The initial consultation took place in Rivera's Tuguegarao City office, where he
assured her of a strong case and quoted a fee of P25,000.00.
 Madria signed the annulment petition on November 19, 2002, and made an
initial payment of P4,000.00, followed by subsequent payments in December
2002.
 Rivera issued handwritten receipts and assured Madria she did not need to
appear in court.
 In April 2003, Rivera informed Madria that her petition was granted, and she
received a trial court decision dated April 16, 2003.
 Rivera advised Madria to wait five months before claiming single status, which
she did in her Voter's Registration Record.
 In September 2003, Madria received a certificate of finality dated September 26,
2003.
 Madria used these documents to renew her passport but faced an NBI
investigation after her former partner claimed the documents were fabricated.
 The RTC Clerk of Court confirmed the case was dismissed in April 2004 and the
documents were forged.
 Madria faced criminal charges under the Philippine Passport Act and claimed
she relied on Rivera's representations.
 Rivera denied the allegations, claiming Madria insisted on simulating the
documents and ignored hearing notices.

14 | P a g e
  The IBP investigated and recommended Rivera's suspension, which the IBP
Board of Governors modified to disbarment for violating his Lawyer's Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
 Did Atty. Carlos P. Rivera violate his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility by simulating court documents and betraying his client's trust?

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation and
disbarred Atty. Carlos P. Rivera.
 His name was ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, with the
decision being immediately executory.

Ratio:
 Rivera was found guilty of grave misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
 His admission of simulating annulment documents constituted criminal
falsification and forgery.
 These actions reflected moral turpitude and undermined the justice system.
 The Court emphasized a lawyer's duty to uphold the law and ethical standards
per the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Rivera's attempt to blame his client was deemed improbable and unacceptable.
 His past suspension for notarizing without a commission indicated a pattern of
unprofessional behavior.
 The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege that can be revoked
for gross misconduct to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

Chu v. Atty. Jose Guico, Jr., AC No. 10573, January 13, 2015
Case Summary (A.C. No. 10573)

Background of the Case

 Fernando W. Chu filed a disbarment complaint against his former lawyer, Atty.
Jose C. Guico, Jr.
 Chu hired Atty. Guico to handle labor disputes involving his company, CVC San
Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation.
 Atty. Guico allegedly demanded a substantial amount of money from Chu in
exchange for a favorable decision in a labor dispute case.
 Chu complied and delivered the money to Atty. Guico's assistant without
receiving a receipt.
 Atty. Guico provided Chu with an alleged draft decision in favor of CVC, printed
on used paper from his office.
 Atty. Guico asked Chu to raise more money to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision.
 Chu delivered another amount of money to Atty. Guico's office, but no receipt
was issued.
 The NLRC eventually rendered a decision adverse to CVC.
 Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who referred him to his assistant for the filing of a
motion for reconsideration.
 After the motion was denied, Atty. Guico filed an appeal in the Court of
Appeals.
 Chu terminated Atty. Guico as his legal counsel.

IBP's Findings and Recommendations

 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Guico guilty of violating
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

15 | P a g e
  The IBP Board of Governors recommended a three-year suspension for Atty.
Guico and ordered him to return the amount of P580,000.00 to Chu.
 Atty. Guico filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP
Board of Governors.
 Neither party brought a petition for review against the IBP's decision.

Burden of Proof and Evidence Presented

 The burden of proof rests on the complainant (Chu) to establish the lawyer's
(Atty. Guico) liability by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
 Chu presented affidavits of witnesses and the draft decision allegedly printed
on used paper from Atty. Guico's office.
 Atty. Guico denied the allegations and claimed that the used paper could have
been taken by Chu's witnesses in a criminal case he handled for Chu.
 However, the Court found that Atty. Guico's implied admission, as well as the
testimony and circumstances presented by Chu, were sufficient to establish the
gross misconduct of demanding and receiving money in exchange for a
favorable decision.

Court's Ruling and Disbarment

 The Court ruled that Atty. Guico violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and
1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The Court emphasized that lawyers have a sworn obligation to respect the law
and legal processes and to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
 Atty. Guico's actions constituted grave misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit,
making him unfit to remain a member of the legal profession.
 The Court decided to disbar Atty. Guico and ordered him to return the amount
of P580,000.00 to Chu.
 The Court also emphasized that the administrative proceeding established Atty.
Guico's liability, and Chu should not be required to litigate in another
proceeding to recover the money.

Chu v. Atty. Jose Guico, Jr., AC No. 10573, January 13, 2015
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10573)

Facts:
 Fernando W. Chu filed a disbarment complaint against his former lawyer, Atty.
Jose C. Guico, Jr., for gross misconduct.
 Chu had retained Atty. Guico to handle labor disputes involving his company,
CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC).
 A labor dispute case (NLRC Case No. RAB-III-08-9261-05) was filed by the
Kilusan ng Manggagawang Makabayan (KMM) against CVC and Chu.
 Labor Arbiter Herminio V. Suelo ruled against CVC on September 7, 2006,
prompting an appeal by Atty. Guico.
 During a Christmas party on December 5, 2006, Atty. Guico asked Chu to
prepare money to secure a favorable decision from the NLRC Commissioner.
 Chu raised and delivered P300,000.00 to Atty. Guico's assistant, Reynaldo
(Nardo) Manahan, on June 10, 2007.
 A second request for P300,000.00 resulted in Chu delivering P280,000.00 to
Nardo on July 10, 2007.
 Despite the payments, the NLRC ruled against CVC on January 19, 2009. A
motion for reconsideration was also denied.
 Chu terminated Atty. Guico as his legal counsel on May 25, 2009.
 Atty. Guico denied the allegations and described the complaint as harassment.
 The IBP Board of Governors found Atty. Guico guilty of misconduct and initially
recommended a three-year suspension, later modified to disbarment by the
Supreme Court.

16 | P a g e
Issue:
 Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of
the Code of Professional Responsibility by demanding and receiving
P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from the NLRC?

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court found Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr. guilty of violating the Lawyer's
Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 The Court disbarred Atty. Guico and ordered his name to be stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.
 Atty. Guico was ordered to return P580,000.00 to Chu with legal interest within
thirty days from receipt of notice.

Ratio:
 In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is on the complainant to
establish the lawyer’s liability with clear and convincing evidence.
 Chu provided witness affidavits and presented a draft decision allegedly from
the NLRC, found on used paper from Atty. Guico's office.
 The Court found Atty. Guico’s involvement in generating the draft decision
undeniable, as he impliedly admitted the paper's origin.
 Atty. Guico's actions, including presenting the draft decision and demanding
money, constituted gross misconduct.
 His conduct violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the law and promote respect
for legal processes.
 The Court highlighted that Atty. Guico's actions eroded public confidence in the
legal profession and demonstrated his unworthiness to continue as a member of
the Bar.
 The Court deemed it just to require Atty. Guico to return the money obtained
under false pretenses to Chu.

Garcia v. Atty. Raul Sesbreno, AC Nos. 7973 & 10457, February 3, 2015
Case Summary (A.C. No. 7973, 10457)

Parties Involved and Complaints Filed

 Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño: The lawyer who is facing disbarment for practicing law
despite a previous conviction for homicide.
 Dr. Melvyn G. Garcia: The complainant who filed two complaints against
Sesbreño.
 Complaint A.C. No. 7973: Garcia alleged that Sesbreño, who was representing
Garcia's children in a support case, had been convicted of homicide and was
only on parole.
 Complaint A.C. No. 10457: Garcia accused Sesbreño of practicing law despite his
previous conviction for homicide.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

 Garcia's Argument: Homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore
Sesbreño should not be allowed to continue practicing law.
 Sesbreño's Defense: Garcia's complaint was motivated by resentment and desire
for revenge. He also argued that his sentence had been commuted and that the
disqualification only applies during the term of the sentence. Additionally, he
claimed that homicide does not involve moral turpitude and that Garcia's
complaint was motivated by malice.

17 | P a g e
Ruling of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD)
 The IBP-CBD consolidated the two complaints and ruled that conviction for a
crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
 The IBP-CBD found that Sesbreño's conviction for homicide involved moral
turpitude based on the circumstances leading to the death of the victim.
 The IBP-CBD recommended that Sesbreño be disbarred.

Decision of the IBP Board of Governors and Motion for Reconsideration

 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
IBP-CBD.
 Sesbreño filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

Supreme Court's Ruling

 The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
CBD.
 The Court ruled that conviction for the crime of homicide can involve moral
turpitude depending on the degree of the crime and the surrounding
circumstances.
 The circumstances in this case showed the presence of moral turpitude.
 The Court rejected Sesbreño's argument that executive clemency restored his
full civil and political rights, as the commutation of his sentence did not
mention that the pardon was absolute and unconditional.
 The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege granted only to
those possessing good moral character, and a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies disbarment.

Disbarment of Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño

 As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño was
disbarred effective immediately upon receipt of the decision.
 For use as a guide and tool to compleme

Garcia v. Atty. Raul Sesbreno, AC Nos. 7973 & 10457, February 3, 2015
Case Digest (A.C. No. 7973, 10457)

Facts:
 In the consolidated disbarment cases A.C. Nos. 7973 and 10457, Dr. Melvyn G.
Garcia filed complaints against Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño.
 The first complaint, A.C. No. 7973, was filed on July 30, 2008, alleging that
Sesbreño, who represented Garcia's daughters in a support case, was convicted
of homicide and was on parole.
 Garcia argued that homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude, disqualifying
Sesbreño from practicing law.
 Sesbreño countered that Garcia's complaint was motivated by resentment and
revenge.
 The second complaint, A.C. No. 10457 (originally CBC Case No. 08-2273), was
filed a day earlier on July 29, 2008, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines -
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
 Garcia reiterated that Sesbreño continued to practice law despite his conviction
for homicide, violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
 Sesbreño argued that his sentence was commuted and that homicide does not
necessarily involve moral turpitude.
 He also claimed that Garcia's complaint was driven by malice and bad faith.
 The IBP-CBD consolidated the cases and focused on whether Sesbreño's
conviction for homicide involved moral turpitude.

18 | P a g e
  The IBP-CBD found that the circumstances of the crime did involve moral
turpitude and recommended Sesbreño's disbarment.
 Sesbreño's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the cases were elevated
to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
 Does a conviction for the crime of homicide involve moral turpitude?
 Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Sesbreño's conviction for homicide involved
moral turpitude.
 Does executive clemency restore a lawyer's full civil and political rights,
allowing them to continue practicing law?
 No, the Supreme Court ruled that executive clemency did not restore Sesbreño's
full civil and political rights to practice law.
Ruling:
 Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Sesbreño's conviction for homicide involved
moral turpitude.
 No, the Supreme Court ruled that executive clemency did not restore Sesbreño's
full civil and political rights to practice law.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the IBP-CBD.
 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a lawyer may be disbarred
for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
 Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
 The Court reviewed the circumstances of Sesbreño's crime and agreed with the
IBP-CBD that the unprovoked shooting of Luciano Amparado and his
companion, who were merely passing by Sesbreño's house, demonstrated moral
turpitude.
 The Court also addressed Sesbreño's argument regarding executive clemency.
 It clarified that commutation of a sentence is merely a reduction of penalty and
does not equate to an absolute and unconditional pardon, which would restore
full civil and political rights.
 The Order of Commutation did not explicitly state that it was absolute and
unconditional.
 Furthermore, the practice of law is a privilege granted only to those with good
moral character.
 Given Sesbreño's actions and the nature of his crime, the Court found that he
did not meet the high moral standards required of the legal profession.
 Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño,
effective immediately upon receipt of the decision, and directed that copies of
the decision be disseminated to relevant legal and judicial bodies.

Jose Allan Tan v. Pedro Diamante, AC No. 7766, August 5, 2014

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7766)

Parties Involved and Accusations

 Lawyer: Pedro S. Diamante
 Complainant: Jose Allan Tan
 Accusations against Diamante:
 Deceitfully concealing the dismissal of the client's case
 Fabricating a fake court order
 Failing to exercise due diligence in filing an appeal

Background and Dismissal of the Case

 Jose Allan Tan hired Pedro S. Diamante to pursue a case for partition of
property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan.
 The complaint was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for lack of cause
of action and insufficiency of evidence.

19 | P a g e
Failure to Inform the Client
 Diamante failed to inform Tan about the dismissal of his case until Tan visited
his office.
 Tan gave Diamante PHP 500.00 as a reservation fee for filing a notice of appeal,
as he couldn't produce the full amount at that time.
 Later, Tan handed over the full amount, and Diamante filed a notice of appeal
before the RTC.

Fabrication of Fake Court Order

 The appeal was dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period
provided by law.
 Diamante did not disclose this fact to Tan and instead showed him a fake court
order dated November 9, 2007.
 The fake court order supposedly directed the submission of DNA testing results
to prove Tan's filiation to the late Luis Tan.

Administrative Complaint and Diamante's Defense

 Feeling aggrieved, Tan filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
Diamante.
 Diamante claimed that the late filing of the appeal was due to Tan's failure to
produce the necessary amount for appeal fees.
 Diamante argued that he assisted Tan out of desperation and not for money or
malice, and that he was being blamed for the court's unfavorable decision.

IBP's Findings and Recommendation

 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found
Diamante administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension.
 The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted and approved this
recommendation.

Court's Decision and Violations

 The Court concurred with the IBP's findings and held that Diamante violated the
duty of a lawyer to keep the client informed of the status of the case and to
respond to the client's requests for information.
 Diamante failed to inform Tan of the dismissal of his case and was negligent in
filing the appeal.
 Diamante fabricated a fake court order to conceal the dismissal and engaged in
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
 These actions violated the lawyer's duty to uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Disbarment and Penalties

 The Court found Diamante guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred him.
 The Court emphasized that lawyers should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
 Failure to serve the client's interests with utmost diligence and competence, as
well as engaging in unlawful and deceitful conduct, should not be countenanced
and warrants administrative sanctions.
 Given Diamante's acts of falsification and misrepresentation, the Court deemed
disbarment as the appropriate penalty.

Court's Orders
 The Court ordered Diamante to be disbarred and stricken off from the roll of
attorneys.
 A copy of the decision was to be attached to Diamante's record.
 Copies were to be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

20 | P a g e
 Jose Allan Tan v. Pedro Diamante, AC No. 7766, August 5, 2014
Case Digest (A.C. No. 7766)

Facts:
 Parties Involved: Jose Allan Tan (complainant) and Pedro S. Diamante (respondent).
 Nature of Case: Administrative complaint for disbarment.

 Background:
 Tan engaged Diamante's legal services on April 2, 2003, to pursue a partition of
property case.
 The case was filed before the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 46 (Civil Case No. 03 -
11947).
 The RTC dismissed the case on July 25, 2007, for lack of cause of action and
insufficiency of evidence.
 Diamante was notified of the dismissal on August 14, 2007, but Tan only
learned of it on August 24, 2007.

Subsequent Events:
 Diamante requested PhP10,000.00 for appeal fees; Tan initially provided
PhP500.00.
 On September 12, 2007, Tan gave Diamante the full amount, and Diamante filed
a notice of appeal the same day.
 The RTC dismissed the appeal on September 18, 2007, for being filed late.
 Diamante did not inform Tan of this dismissal and instead showed him a
fabricated court order dated November 9, 2007.
 Tan discovered the order was spurious during a visit to the RTC.
 Complaint Filed: Aggrieved, Tan filed the disbarment complaint.

Issue:
 Administrative Liability: Should Pedro S. Diamante be held administratively
liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
 Appropriate Penalty: What is the appropriate penalty for Diamante's actions?

Ruling:
 Administrative Liability: Yes, Pedro S. Diamante should be held administratively
liable for violating the CPR.

Penalty: The appropriate penalty for Diamante's actions is disbarment.

Ratio/Findings:
 The Court concurred with the IBP's findings but modified the recommended
penalty.
 Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, a lawyer must keep the client informed
of the case's status.
 Diamante failed to inform Tan of the dismissal and negligently filed the appeal
late, resulting in its dismissal.
 Diamante's fabrication of the court order constituted unlawful, dishonest, and
deceitful conduct, violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

Court Emphasis:
 Lawyers must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing.
 Diamante's actions revealed a moral flaw, making him unfit to practice law.

Precedent:
 Jurisprudence indicates that non-disclosure cases typically result in six-month
suspensions, while falsification cases lead to disbarment.

21 | P a g e
Conclusion:
 Given the totality of Diamante's violations and the prejudice caused to Tan,
disbarment was deemed appropriate.
 Diamante was disbarred for Gross Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR.
 His name was ordered to be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Atty. Oscar Embido v. Atty. Salvador N. Pe, AC No. 6732, October 22, 2013
Case Summary (A.C. No. 6732)

Background of the Case

 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. is facing disbarment for
forging a court decision and presenting it as authentic.
 The case was filed by Atty. Oscar L. Embido, Regional Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Western Visayas.

Allegations and Discovery of Falsified Decision

 Atty. Pe is accused of falsifying a decision from Branch 64 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Bugasong, Antique.
 The request for the decision came from a solicitor in the United Kingdom, who
was seeking a copy of the decision in a case involving the declaration of
presumptive death of Rey Laserna.
 It was discovered that the RTC had no record of the case involving Shirley
Quioyo as the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed a different case
involving Serena Catin Austria as the petitioner.

Affidavit and Corroborating Testimony

 Dy Quioyo, Shirley's brother, executed an affidavit stating that Atty. Pe
facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision for a fee of P60,000.
 Mary Rose Quioyo, Shirley's sister, corroborated Dy Quioyo's statement.

Investigation and Recommendation

 The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and
recommended that Atty. Pe be prosecuted for falsification of public documents
and be subjected to disbarment proceedings.
 The case was forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.

Guilty Verdict and Recommended Suspension

 The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Pe guilty of serious misconduct
and violations of the Attorney's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The commissioner recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of
law.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation with
modification, suspending Atty. Pe for six years.

Motion for Reconsideration and Denial

 Atty. Pe filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors.

Supreme Court Decision

 The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
 The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP Board of Governors and
found Atty. Pe guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision.
 The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers upholding the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession and not engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct.

22 | P a g e
Disbarment and Removal from the Roll of Attorneys
 Atty. Pe was disbarred and his name was ordered to be removed from the Roll
of Attorneys.
 The Court directed the Bar Confidant to disseminate the decision to all courts in
the country and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Atty. Oscar Embido v. Atty. Salvador N. Pe, AC No. 6732, October 22, 2013
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6732)

Facts:
 The case "Embido v. Pe, Jr." (A.C. No. 6732) was decided on October 22, 2013.
 A disbarment complaint was filed by Atty. Oscar L. Embido, Regional Director of
the NBI Western Visayas Regional Office, against Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr.,
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of San Jose, Antique.
 The complaint alleged that Atty. Pe falsified a court decision supposedly
rendered by Branch 64 of the RTC in Bugasong, Antique.
 This falsified decision was used by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the
United Kingdom.
 The falsification was uncovered when Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a UK Solicitor,
requested a copy of the decision dated February 12, 1997, in Special
Proceedings Case No. 084.
 Upon investigation, it was found that there was no such case involving Rey
Laserna; the genuine case involved Rolando Austria.
 The NBI's investigation led to Dy Quioyo, Shirley’s brother, executing an
affidavit implicating Atty. Pe in the falsification for a fee of PHP 60,000.
 Despite Atty. Pe’s denial and invocation of his right to remain silent, the NBI
recommended his prosecution for falsification of a public document and
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.

Issue:
 Did Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. falsify a court decision?
 Should Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. be disbarred for his actions?

Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. falsified a court decision.
 Yes, Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. should be disbarred for his actions.

Ratio:
 The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP's findings that Atty. Pe was guilty of grave
misconduct for falsifying a court decision.
 Atty. Pe’s blanket denial and implication against Dy Quioyo were found
unpersuasive.
 Dy Quioyo's positive evidence, indicating that Atty. Pe facilitated the
falsification for a fee, outweighed the respondent's negative evidence.
 The sworn statement of Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, which Atty. Pe relied upon to shift
blame, was deemed unreliable and hearsay.
 The falsified decision was an almost verbatim reproduction of an authentic
decision, indicating Atty. Pe's direct involvement.
 Atty. Pe's actions violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the dignity
and integrity of the profession and not engage in unlawful or deceitful conduct.
 The deliberate falsification of a court decision demonstrated a high degree of
moral turpitude and undermined the administration of justice.

23 | P a g e
  Consequently, the Court disbarred Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. and ordered the
removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys, highlighting that the practice of
law is a privilege reserved for those who adhere to the highest ethical standards.

Lustestica v. Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, AC No. 6258, August 24, 2010

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6258)

Case Background and Allegations

 Attorney Sergio E. Bernabe is facing a disbarment complaint for notarizing a
falsified deed of donation without verifying the identities of the parties
involved.
 The complainant, Luzviminda R. Lustestica, claims that the deed of donation
was executed by her deceased father and his first wife, who were already dead
at the time of execution.

Attorney Bernabe's Defense

 Attorney Bernabe admits that he was unaware of the death of the donors when
he notarized the deed.
 He claims to have made efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who
appeared before him as the donors.

Referral to the Commission on Bar Discipline

 The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
 The IBP Commission found that Attorney Bernabe did not verify the identities of
the parties involved and did not comply with notarization requirements.
 Attorney Bernabe admitted to notarizing a forged document.

Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner

 The IBP Commissioner recommended a penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for
two years.
 The Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and
approved this recommendation.

Recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant

 The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the suspension and
disqualification should have commenced from the date of receipt of the court's
decision, rather than the date of receipt of the IBP's resolution.
 It also recommended that Attorney Bernabe be required to submit certification
of fully serving a previous suspension and disqualification.

Court Decision and Penalty Imposed

 The court agreed with the findings of the IBP Commission and imposed the
penalty of disbarment and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned
as a notary public.
 The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and noted that this was Attorney Bernabe's second offense.

Denial of Attorney Bernabe's Request

 The court denied Attorney Bernabe's request for clearance to resume the
practice of law and to apply for a notarial commission, deeming it moot and
academic.

Order of the Court

 The court ordered that a copy of the decision be attached to Attorney Bernabe's
record, circulated to all courts, and furnished to the Office of the Prosecutor
General for possible legal action.

24 | P a g e
 Lustestica v. Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, AC No. 6258, August 24, 2010
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6258)

Facts:
 The case "Lustestica v. Bernabe" involves a disbarment complaint by Luzviminda
R. Lustestica against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe.
 The complaint arose from Atty. Bernabe's notarization of a falsified Deed of
Donation of real property, allegedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica and
Cornelia P. Rivero, who were deceased at the time of the document's execution
on August 5, 1994.
 Luzviminda, the complainant, is the daughter of Benvenuto H. Lustestica.
 Atty. Bernabe admitted the donors' deaths, as evidenced by their death
certificates attached to the complaint, but claimed he was unaware of their
deaths at the time of notarization.
 He asserted that he made efforts to verify the identities of the individuals who
appeared before him.
 The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, evaluation, and recommendation.
 The IBP found that Atty. Bernabe failed to comply with the Notarial Law by not
verifying the identities of the parties and not recording their residence
certificates.
 The IBP recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a
two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
 This recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
 Atty. Bernabe had a prior infraction in a similar case (A.C. No. 6963), leading to
further scrutiny and eventual disbarment.

Issue:
 Did Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe commit a falsehood in violation of his oath as a
lawyer and his duties as a notary public by notarizing a Deed of Donation
purportedly executed by deceased individuals?
 Should Atty. Bernabe be disbarred and perpetually disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public for his actions?
Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a
lawyer and his duties as a notary public by notarizing a Deed of Donation
purportedly executed by deceased individuals.
 Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is disbarred from the practice of law and perpetually
disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Ratio:
 The Court emphasized the critical role of a notary public in ensuring the
authenticity of documents and maintaining public trust.
 Atty. Bernabe's failure to verify the identities of the parties and his admission
that the donors were already deceased at the time of notarization demonstrated
gross negligence and deceitful conduct.
 The Court noted that notarization is not a mere formality but a significant act
that converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
 Atty. Bernabe's actions undermined public confidence in notarized documents
and violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103) and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Given that this was his second offense, the Court found the IBP's recommended
penalties insufficient and decided to impose the more severe penalty of
disbarment and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
public.
 The Court also denied Atty. Bernabe's request for clearance to resume the
practice of law and to apply for a notarial commission, rendering it moot and
academic.

25 | P a g e
 Fabay v. Atty. Rex A . Resuena, AC No. 8732, February 26, 2016
Case Summary (A.C. No. 8723)

Parties Involved and Allegations

 Gregory Fabay filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rex A. Resuena.
 Fabay alleges that Atty. Resuena engaged in gross misconduct and unauthorized
notarization of documents in relation to a civil case.

Facts of the Case

 On October 15, 2003, plaintiffs Virginia Perez, Marcella Perez, Amador Perez,
Gloria Perez, Gracia Perez, and Valentino Perez filed a complaint for
ejectment/forcible entry against Gregory Fabay.
 Atty. Resuena served as their counsel in the case.
 On the same date, Atty. Resuena notarized a special power of attorney (SPA)
with the plaintiffs as grantors, in favor of Apolo D. Perez.
 It was discovered that only Remedios Perez actually signed the SPA on behalf of
Amador Perez, Valentino Perez, Gloria Perez, and Gracia Perez.
 The SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book.
 The ejectment case was initially decided in favor of Atty. Resuena's client, but
on appeal, the Regional Trial Court ordered the case to be remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings.
 The trial court noted in its decision that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez had
already passed away before the execution of the SPA.

Allegations of Violation of Notarial Law

 Fabay alleges that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the notarial law by
not requiring the personal appearance of the parties who signed the SPA.
 Fabay also alleges that Atty. Resuena allowed Remedios Perez to sign on behalf
of deceased individuals and individuals residing abroad.

Defense and Denial of Allegations

 Atty. Resuena denies the allegations and claims that the complaint was tainted
with malice.
 He argues that Remedios Perez, as the spouse of Amador Perez, was authorized
to represent him and was also authorized by Gloria Perez and Gracia Perez.
 Atty. Resuena insists that there was no misrepresentation in the notarization of
the SPA.

Findings and Recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

 The IBP found Atty. Resuena to have violated the notarial law.
 The IBP recommended the revocation of his notarial commission and a one-year
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Modification of Penalty by the IBP Board of Governors

 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
IBP-CBD.
 However, they modified the penalty to a two-year disqualification from notarial
practice.

Supreme Court's Concurrence with Findings and Disagreement with Penalty

 The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the IBP but disagreed with
the penalty imposed.
 The Court emphasized the importance of notarization and the need for notaries
public to observe the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
 The Court held that Atty. Resuena's actions undermined the integrity of
notarization and violated the lawyer's oath.
 As a result, Atty. Resuena was disbarred and perpetually disqualified from being
commissioned as a notary public.

26 | P a g e
Dissemination of Resolution
 The Court ordered that copies of the resolution be furnished to the Office of the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

Fabay v. Atty. Rex A . Resuena, AC No. 8732, February 26, 2016

Case Digest (A.C. No. 8723)

Facts:
 The case "Fabay v. Resuena" involves a disbarment complaint filed by Gregory
Fabay against Atty. Rex A. Resuena for gross misconduct due to unauthorized
notarization of documents.
 On October 15, 2003, Virginia Perez and others filed a complaint for ejectment
against Gregory Fabay, with Atty. Resuena as their counsel.
 On the same date, Atty. Resuena notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
with the plaintiffs as grantors in favor of Apolo D. Perez.
 Only Remedios Perez signed the SPA on behalf of Amador Perez, Valentino
Perez, Gloria Perez, and Gracia Perez.
 The SPA was recorded in Atty. Resuena's notarial book as Doc. No. 126, Page 26,
Book 1, Series of 2003.
 The ejectment case was initially decided in favor of Atty. Resuena's clients, but
on appeal, the Regional Trial Court remanded the case for trial on the merits.
 The trial court noted that both Amador Perez and Valentino Perez had died
before the SPA was notarized.
 Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the Notarial Law by notarizing the SPA
despite the fact that two of the principals were deceased.
 Fabay also claimed that Atty. Resuena notarized a complaint for ejectment in
2003, where Apolo Perez was made to appear as the attorney-in-fact of the
deceased individuals.
 Fabay accused Atty. Resuena of participating in barangay conciliations, which is
prohibited by law.
 Atty. Resuena denied the allegations, claiming that the complaint was malicious
and that Remedios Perez was authorized to sign on behalf of the other co -
owners.
 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, which found Atty. Resuena in violation of the Notarial Law and
recommended revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from
notarial practice for one year.
 The IBP Board of Governors later modified the penalty to two years
disqualification from notarial practice.
 The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP's findings but imposed a harsher
penalty.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Resuena violate the Notarial Law by notarizing the SPA without the
personal appearance of all the signatories, including those who were deceased?
 Did Atty. Resuena engage in misconduct as a lawyer by participating in
barangay conciliations and allowing the use of the SPA in court despite knowing
the irregularities?

Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Resuena violated the Notarial Law by notarizing the SPA without the
personal appearance of all the signatories, including those who were deceased.
 Yes, Atty. Resuena engaged in misconduct as a lawyer by participating in
barangay conciliations and allowing the use of the SPA in court despite knowing
the irregularities.

27 | P a g e
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but a
significant act imbued with public interest.
 Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.
 The Court stressed that a notary public must ensure the personal appearance of
the signatories to verify the genuineness of their signatures and ascertain that
the document is their free act and deed.
 Atty. Resuena violated Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, which mandates the personal appearance of the signatories before the
notary public.
 By allowing Remedios Perez to sign on behalf of deceased individuals and those
residing abroad, Atty. Resuena undermined the integrity of the notarization
process.
 Furthermore, his actions as a lawyer, including participating in barangay
conciliations and using the irregularly notarized SPA in court, demonstrated a
disregard for legal ethics and professional responsibility.
 The Court found that Atty. Resuena's actions constituted a serious breach of his
duties as a lawyer and a notary public, warranting his disbarment and perpetual
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Atty. Florita Linco v. Atty. Jimmy Lacebal, AC No. 7241, October 17, 2011
Case Summary (A.C. No. 7421)

FACTS:
An administrative Complaint was filed by Atty. Florita S. Linco (complainant) before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal for
disciplinary action for his failure to perform his duty as a notary public, which
resulted in the violation of their rights over their property. Complainant is the widow
of the late Atty. Alberto Linco (Atty. Linco), the registered owner of a parcel of land
with improvements in Cainta. Complainant alleged that Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal
(respondent), a notary public for Mandaluyong City, notarized a deed of donation
allegedly executed by her husband in favor of Alexander David T. Linco, a minor.
Consequently, by virtue of the purported deed of donation, the Register of Deeds of
Antipolo City cancelled TCT No. and issued a new TCT No. 292515 in the name of
Alexander David T. Linco.

Petitioner’s Contention:
She claims that respondent's reprehensible act in connivance with Toledo was
violative of her and her children's rights but also in violation of the notarial law. The
notarial acknowledgment stated that Atty. Linco and Lina P. Toledo (Toledo), mother
of the donee, allegedly personally appeared before respondent on July 30, 2003,
despite the fact that complainants husband died on July 29, 2003. Respondent's lack of
honesty and candor is unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.

Respondent’s Contention:
Respondent admitted having notarized and acknowledged a deed of donation
executed by the donor, Atty. Linco, in favor of his son, Alexander David T. Linco, as
represented by Lina P. Toledo. He was invited by Atty. Linco, through an emissary in
the person of Claire Juele-Algodon (Algodon), to see him at his residence and was then
informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to discuss something with him. Atty.
Linco showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject of the
donation. Respondent claimed that Atty. Linco asked him a favor of notarizing the
deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses. However, respondent

28 | P a g e
explained that since he had no idea that he would be notarizing a document, he did not
bring his notarial book and seal with him. Thus, he instead told Algodon and Toledo to
bring to his office the signed deed of donation anytime at their convenience so that he
could formally notarize and acknowledge the same. On July 30, 2003, respondent
claimed that Toledo and Algodon went to his law office and informed him that Atty.
Linco had passed away on July 29, 2003. Respondent was then asked to notarize the
deed of donation. Respondent admitted to have consented as he found it to be his
commitment to a fellow lawyer. Thus, he notarized the subject deed of donation,
which was actually signed in his presence on July 8, 2003

IBP Ruling and Recommendation:

The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent guilty of violating

the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP-CBD, thus,
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, and that his notarial commission be revoked and he be disqualified from
re-appointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years. The IBP-Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the Notarial Law?

HELD:

Yes, respondent made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. As a rule, a lawyer engaged in
notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same
are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. It is established that Atty. Linco
was already dead when respondent notarized the deed of donation on July 30, 2003.
Respondent likewise admitted that he knew that Atty. Linco died a day before he
notarized the deed of donation. Respondent notarized the document after the lapse of
more than 20 days from July 8, 2003, when he was allegedly asked to notarize the
deed of donation. The sufficient lapse of time from the time he last saw Atty. Linco
should have put him on guard and deterred him from proceeding with the
notarization of the deed of donation. However, respondent chose to ignore the basics
of notarial procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a colleague. The
fact that respondent previously appeared before him in person does not justify his act
of notarizing the deed of donation, considering the affiant's absence on the very day
the document was notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the deed of donation,
respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared before him on July
30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30,
2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003.

Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. For breach of the Notarial Law
and Code of Professional Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent ATTY.
JIMMY D. LACEBAL, is REVOKED. And he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as
Notary Public for a period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one year.

29 | P a g e
Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay, AC No. 8103, December 3,
2014
Case Summary (A.C. No. 8103)

Background of the Case

 Attorney Renato C. Bagay's notarial commission was revoked and he was
disqualified from reappointment for two years.
 The revocation and disqualification were due to the negligence of his secretary
in notarizing documents using his name while he was out of the country.
 The case highlights the importance of notarial duties and the need for notaries
public to maintain the integrity of public instruments.

Allegations and Verification

 Attorney Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan,
submitted a letter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan.
 The letter alleged that Attorney Bagay notarized 18 documents while he was out
of the country from March 13, 2008, to April 8, 2008.
 The Provincial Treasurer endorsed the documents to the Provincial Legal Office,
stating that they were notarized while Attorney Bagay was abroad.
 Affidavits from the persons who caused the documents to be notarized stated
that they did not see Attorney Bagay sign the documents himself.
 The affidavits mentioned that either the secretary signed them or the
documents came out of the office already signed.
 Verification with the Bureau of Immigration confirmed that Attorney Bagay was
indeed out of the country during that period.

Investigation and Recommendation

 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.
 The Investigating Commissioner found Attorney Bagay guilty of negligence in
the performance of his notarial duty.
 The Commissioner recommended the revocation of Attorney Bagay's notarial
commission and his disqualification from reappointment for two years.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation.

Motion for Reconsideration

 Attorney Bagay filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that he should be
given leniency as he did not have any wrongful intention.
 He argued that his actions only amounted to simple negligence.
 However, the motion was denied by the IBP Board of Governors.

Supreme Court Decision

 The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the IBP, finding Attorney Bagay
guilty of negligence.
 The Court held Attorney Bagay responsible for the acts of his secretary.
 The Court emphasized that Attorney Bagay's negligence in employing an office
secretary who had access to his office, notarial seal, and records led to the
unauthorized notarization of the documents.
 The Court stated that a notary public takes full responsibility for all entries in
their notarial register and cannot pass the blame onto their secretary.
 The Court also held Attorney Bagay liable for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

30 | P a g e
Penalties Imposed
 In addition to the revocation of Attorney Bagay's notarial commission and his
disqualification from reappointment for two years, the Court also suspended
him from the practice of law for three months.
 The Court emphasized the importance of notarization and the need for notaries
public to observe the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
 The Court highlighted that maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity
of public instruments is crucial.

Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay, AC No. 8103, December 3,

2014
Case Digest (A.C. No. 8103)

Facts:
 Atty. Renato C. Bagay had his notarial commission revoked and was disqualified
from reappointment for two years.
 Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, submitted a
letter against Atty. Bagay for allegedly notarizing 18 documents while he was
out of the country.
 The documents were notarized by Bagay's secretary without his knowledge or
authorization.
 The Provincial Treasurer endorsed the documents to the Provincial Legal Office,
leading to the investigation and filing of the complaint against Bagay.
 Issue:
 Whether the notarization of documents by Bagay's secretary while he was out of
the country constituted negligence.
Ruling:
 The court ruled in the affirmative, stating that Bagay's negligence in leaving his
office open to the public and allowing his secretary access to his notarial seal
and records constituted negligence.
 The court held Bagay responsible for the acts of his secretary and stated that a
notary public's secretary is not commissioned to perform the official acts of a
notary public.
 The court rejected Bagay's plea for leniency, stating that his experience as a
lawyer should have prevented such violations of his notarial duty.
 The court revoked Bagay's notarial commission, disqualified him from
reappointment for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for
three months.
Ratio:
 The court based its decision on the fact that Bagay's negligence allowed his
secretary to notarize documents without his knowledge or authorization.
 The court emphasized that a notary public takes full responsibility for all
entries in their notarial register and cannot pass the blame onto their secretary.
 The court highlighted the importance of notarial duties and the need for
notaries public to maintain the integrity of public instruments.
 The court stated that notarization is not an empty, routinary act, but a duty
imbued with public interest.
 The court emphasized that notaries public must observe the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties to protect the confidence of the public in the
integrity of public instruments.

31 | P a g e
 Espinosa et. al v., Atty. Julieta Omana, AC No. 9081, October 12, 2011
Case Summary (A.C. No. 9081)

Parties Involved and Allegations

 Rodolfo A. Espinosa and Maximo A. Glindo filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Julieta A. Omaña.
 The complainants alleged that Omaña violated her oath as a lawyer, engaged in
malpractice, and committed gross misconduct in office.

Background and Preparation of the Contract

 The complainants sought Omaña's legal advice on whether they could legally live
separately and dissolve their marriage. Omaña prepared a document entitled
"Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" (contract) which outlined the terms and conditions of
their separation. The contract was notarized by Omaña.

Discovery of Invalidity and Filing of Complaint

 The complainants later discovered that the contract was not valid and sought
the advice of another lawyer who confirmed its illegality.
 The complainants filed a complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

Omaña's Defense
 Omaña denied preparing the contract and claimed that it was her part-time
office staff who notarized the document without her knowledge or consent.
 She presented an affidavit from Marantal, the complainant's wife, and a letter of
apology from her staff to support her allegations.

Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility

 The IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by preparing and notarizing a void document.
 The IBP-CBD recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a
two-year suspension as a notary public for Omaña.

Motion for Reconsideration and Denial

 Omaña filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors.

Court's Ruling on the Violation

 The court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
 It ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
judicial approval is void.
 The court emphasized that a notary public should not facilitate the
disintegration of a marriage and the family.

Rejection of Omaña's Defense

 The court rejected Omaña's claim that it was her staff who notarized the
contract, stating that even if it were true, it showed Omaña's negligence in her
notarial duties.

Sanctions Imposed
 The court concluded that Omaña violated the ethics of the legal profession and
suspended her from the practice of law for one year.
 Omaña's notarial commission was also revoked, and she was suspended as a
notary public for two years.

Dissemination of Decision
 The court ordered that a copy of the decision be attached to Omaña's personal
record.
 The decision was also to be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts in the country.
32 | P a g e
 Espinosa et. al v., Atty. Julieta Omana, AC No. 9081, October 12, 2011
Case Digest (A.C. No. 9081)

Facts:
 A disbarment complaint was filed by Rodolfo A. Espinosa and Maximo A. Glindo
against Atty. Julieta A. Omaña.
 The complainants accused Omaña of violating her lawyer's oath, malpractice,
and gross misconduct.
 On November 17, 1997, Espinosa and his wife, Elena Marantal, sought Omaña's
legal advice on separating and dissolving their marriage, solemnized on July 23,
1983.
 Omaña prepared a "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" (Separation Agreement),
detailing separation terms, including child custody and property division.
 Omaña notarized the document, and the couple began implementing its terms,
believing it was legally valid.
 Marantal later took custody of all their children and most of the property.
 Espinosa, consulting Glindo, a law graduate, discovered the document was not
legally valid.
 They filed a complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
 Omaña denied preparing the document, claiming her part-time staff had
notarized it without her knowledge.
 The IBP-CBD found inconsistencies in Omaña's defense and recommended her
suspension from law practice for one year and from notarial practice for two
years.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, and Omaña's motion
for reconsideration was denied.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Julieta A. Omaña violate the Canon of Professional Responsibility in
the notarization of the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" between Marantal and
Espinosa?
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the IBP-CBD.
 Atty. Julieta A. Omaña was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
from notarial practice for two years.
 Her notarial commission, if still existing, was revoked.
Ratio:
 The extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial
approval is void.
 A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and family
by encouraging the separation of spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the
conjugal partnership.
 The Court found that Omaña had notarized the document, despite her claims
otherwise.
 Even if her part-time staff had notarized the document, it showed her
negligence in performing her notarial duties.
 A notary public is personally responsible for the entries in their notarial register
and cannot pass the blame onto their staff.
 By preparing and notarizing a void document, Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prohibiting unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
 Omaña's actions warranted disciplinary sanctions, including suspension from
the practice of law and notarial duties.

33 | P a g e
 Dr. Elmar Perez v. Atty. Tristan Catindig, et al. AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015
Case Summary (A.C. No. 5816)

Background of the Case

 Dr. Elmar O. Perez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo.
 Dr. Perez and Atty. Catindig were friends since their time as students at the
University of the Philippines.
 Atty. Catindig admitted to being married to Lily Corazon Gomez but claimed
that he only married her because she got pregnant and he was afraid of
jeopardizing his scholarship in Harvard Law School.
 Atty. Catindig informed Dr. Perez that he was in the process of obtaining a
divorce in a foreign country to dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he
would eventually marry her once the divorce was decreed.
 They got married in the United States in 1984, but Dr. Perez later discovered
that their marriage was null and void as the divorce decree obtained by Atty.
Catindig and Gomez from the Dominican Republic was not recognized by
Philippine laws.
 Atty. Catindig then left Dr. Perez and their son and pursued a relationship with
Atty. Baydo.

Referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.
 The Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig
for gross immorality.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation.
 Atty. Catindig sought reconsideration but was denied.

Issue at Hand
 The issue in this case is whether the respondents committed gross immorality
that would warrant their disbarment.

Disbarment of Atty. Catindig

 The Court agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
 Atty. Catindig's conduct of contracting a second marriage while his first
marriage was still valid was deemed to constitute gross immorality.
 The Court emphasized that lawyers must display exemplary behavior and
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
 Atty. Catindig's actions were considered a serious outrage to moral standards
and a mockery of the institution of marriage.
 Therefore, the Court ordered his disbarment.

Dismissal of Charges against Atty. Baydo

 The charge against Atty. Baydo was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
 The Court agreed with the Investigating Commissioner's finding that there was
insufficient evidence to prove the alleged affair between Atty. Catindig and Atty.
Baydo.

Conclusion
 Atty. Tristan A. Catindig was disbarred for gross immorality.
 Atty. Karen E. Baydo was dismissed of the charge due to a lack of evidence.

34 | P a g e
 Dr. Elmar Perez v. Atty. Tristan Catindig, et al. AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015
Case Digest (A.C. No. 5816)

Facts:
 Dr. Elmar O. Perez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo on August 27, 2002.
 The complaint alleged gross immorality and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 Dr. Perez and Atty. Catindig had been friends since the mid-1960s and
reconnected in 1983, leading to a romantic relationship.
 Atty. Catindig was already married to Lily Corazon Gomez since May 18, 1968,
but claimed he was seeking a divorce.
 In 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the
Dominican Republic, which is not recognized under Philippine law.
 Subsequently, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in Virginia, USA, and they had a
child.
 Dr. Perez later discovered the invalidity of their marriage and confronted Atty.
Catindig, who promised to legalize their union.
 In 2001, Dr. Perez received an anonymous letter about Atty. Catindig's affair
with Atty. Baydo, and found a love letter from Atty. Catindig to Atty. Baydo.
 Atty. Catindig filed for the nullity of his marriage to Gomez in August 2001 and
left Dr. Perez and their son in October 2001.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the case.
 The Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment for Atty. Catindig
but dismissed the charges against Atty. Baydo due to lack of evidence.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, and Atty. Catindig's
motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue:
 Did Atty. Tristan A. Catindig commit gross immorality warranting disbarment?
 Did Atty. Karen E. Baydo engage in an affair with Atty. Catindig, constituting
gross immorality?

Ruling:
 Atty. Tristan A. Catindig was found guilty of gross immorality and violating the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was disbarred
from the practice of law.
 The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo was dismissed for
lack of evidence.

Ratio:
 The Court upheld the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
 Atty. Catindig's actions of marrying Dr. Perez while still legally married to
Gomez constituted grossly immoral conduct.
 The Court cited Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct and require lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
 Atty. Catindig's knowledge of the invalidity of the Dominican Republic divorce
decree and his subsequent marriage to Dr. Perez demonstrated a blatant
disregard for the sanctity of marriage and legal principles.
 The Court noted that good moral character is essential for lawyers, and Atty.
Catindig's actions were reprehensible and unprincipled.
 The charges against Atty. Baydo were dismissed due to insufficient evidence, as
the allegations were based on an anonymous letter and a love letter, which did
not conclusively prove an affair.
 The decision to disbar Atty. Catindig was deemed necessary to maintain the
integrity of the legal profession.

35 | P a g e
 Advincula v. Advincula, AC No. 9226, June 14, 2016
Case Summary (A.C. No. 9226)

Parties involved and allegations made

 Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula - accused by his wife, Dr. Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C.
Advincula
 Dr. Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C. Advincula - filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Advincula

Allegations made by Dr. Advincula against Atty. Advincula:

 Committing unlawful and immoral acts
 Having an extra-marital affair
 Fathering a child with another woman
 Failing to provide financial support to their children

Atty. Advincula's response:

 Denying the accusations
 Claiming that their marriage had deteriorated
 Asserting that he had provided financial support to his family
 Admitting to a brief relationship with the other woman but denying contracting
a second marriage with her

 Findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
 Found Atty. Advincula guilty of immorality
 Recommended a one-month suspension from the practice of law
IBP Board of Governors' decision:
 Adopted the findings and recommendations of the CBD
 Slightly modified the penalty to a two-month suspension

Atty. Advincula's acceptance:

o Accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors as final and executory

Supreme Court's ruling and imposed penalty

o Emphasized the importance of good moral character for lawyers
o Stressed the need for lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession
o Found Atty. Advincula guilty of immorality
o Considered the degree of his immoral conduct to be less grave since it occurred
before he became a lawyer
o Imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law as a condign and
appropriate penalty

Unacceptability of Atty. Advincula's supposed compliance

o Atty. Advincula's supposed compliance with the recommended two-month
suspension by going on leave from his work at the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) was deemed unacceptable by the Court
o The Court clarified that it is the Court's final determination of his liability as a
lawyer that determines the service of sanctions and penalties
o Stated that his suspension from the practice of law should also include his
suspension from office
o A leave of absence would not suffice
o Ordered the Chief of the Personnel Division of the NBI to implement the
suspension from office and to report on Atty. Advincula's compliance.

Advincula v. Advincula, AC No. 9226, June 14, 2016

Case Digest (A.C. No. 9226)
36 | P a g e
Facts:
o The case "Advincula v. Advincula" involves a disbarment complaint filed by Dr.
Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C. Advincula against her husband, Atty. Leonardo C.
Advincula, on June 16, 2006.
o The complaint was brought before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
o Dr. Advincula accused Atty. Advincula of unlawful and immoral acts, including
engaging in extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga,
resulting in the birth of a child named Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga Advincula.
o Dr. Advincula also alleged that Atty. Advincula failed to provide financial
support to their children, made a false declaration in the affidavit of late
registration of birth of Alexandria, and possibly contracted a subsequent
marriage with Ms. Gonzaga while still married to her.
o Atty. Advincula denied the accusations, asserting that his marital relationship
with Dr. Advincula had deteriorated, leading to their separation.
o He admitted to a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga during the separation but
denied contracting a second marriage.
o He claimed to have provided financial support to both his legitimate children
and Alexandria.
o The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Advincula guilty of
simple immorality and recommended a one-month suspension from the practice
of law.
o The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to a two-month suspension,
which Atty. Advincula accepted and complied with.
o The case was then brought before the Supreme Court for final determination.
Issue:
o Did Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula commit acts of immorality that warrant
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law?
o Should the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors be upheld or
modified?
Ruling:
o The Supreme Court found Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula guilty of immorality.
o The Court suspended Atty. Advincula from the practice of law for three months,
effective upon notice, with a stern warning that a more severe penalty would be
imposed for any future similar offenses.
Ratio:
o The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain good moral
character from the time of their application for admission to the Bar until their
retirement.
o The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that lawyers must not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
o The Court noted that Atty. Advincula's actions, including his extra-marital affair
and the birth of a child out of wedlock, constituted immoral conduct.
o However, the Court also considered that these actions occurred before he
became a lawyer, which mitigated the gravity of his offense.
o The Court determined that a three-month suspension was appropriate, taking
into account the circumstances and Atty. Advincula's compliance with the IBP's
recommended suspension.
o The Court also clarified that the IBP Board of Governors does not have the
power to impose final disciplinary actions on lawyers; only the Supreme Court
holds such authority.
o Therefore, Atty. Advincula's compliance with the IBP's suspension was not
sufficient, and his suspension from the practice of law must include suspension
from his government office at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Keld Stemmerick v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, AC No. 8010, June 16, 2009
Case Summary (A.C. No. 8010)

37 | P a g e
Background of the Case
o Stemmerik v. Mas involves a Filipino lawyer named Atty. Leonuel N. Mas and a
Danish citizen named Keld Stemmerik.
o Stemmerik met Mas during a trip to the Philippines and expressed his interest in
acquiring real property in the country.
o Mas assured Stemmerik that he could legally acquire and own property in the
Philippines and even suggested a specific property for him to purchase.
o Stemmerik agreed to purchase the property through Mas as his representative
and paid him a fee of P400,000.

Failure to Register Property and Discovery of Legal Issues

o After the necessary documents were prepared and the purchase price of P3.8
million was given to Mas, Stemmerik was unable to contact him to inquire about
the registration of the property in his name.
o Stemmerik later discovered that aliens could not own land under Philippine laws
and that the property he supposedly bought was situated within the former US
Military Reservation, making it inalienable.

Complaint and Disbarment Proceedings

o Stemmerik filed a complaint for disbarment against Mas, accusing him of
serious misconduct, including misleading Stemmerik about land ownership laws
and embezzling the P3.8 million.
o Mas failed to file an answer or appear in the scheduled conference despite being
given notice of the disbarment proceedings.
o The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) found that Mas had used his position as a lawyer to deceive Stemmerik and
embezzle his money.
o The CBD recommended Mas's disbarment, and the Board of Governors of the IBP
adopted this recommendation with the modification that Mas was also required
to return the amount of P4.2 million to Stemmerik.

Supreme Court Decision

o The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings and ordered Mas's
disbarment.
o The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty to uphold the law and promote
respect for the legal profession.
o Mas's actions, which included falsifying documents, deceiving his client, and
misappropriating funds, violated the lawyer's oath and several canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Remedies and Actions Ordered by the Supreme Court

o In addition to disbarment, Mas was ordered to return the P4.2 million to
Stemmerik with interest.
o The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was directed to locate Mas and file
criminal charges against him.
o The NBI was also instructed to regularly report the progress of its action in the
case.

Panote: A Filipino lawyer is disbarred and ordered to return funds to a Danish citizen
after misleading him about land ownership laws and embezzling money for a property
purchase.

Keld Stemmerick v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, AC No. 8010, June 16, 2009
Case Digest (A.C. No. 8010)

Facts:

38 | P a g e
 o Keld Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, met Atty. Leonuel N. Mas during a visit to the
Philippines.
o Stemmerik expressed interest in purchasing property in the Philippines.
o Mas assured Stemmerik that it was possible for a foreigner to own land in the
country.
o Mas suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic,
Zambales, claiming it was alienable.
o Stemmerik agreed to purchase the property through Mas and paid a P400,000
fee for document preparation.
o Mas prepared a contract to sell the property between Stemmerik and Bonifacio
de Mesa, the purported owner.
o Later, a deed of sale was drafted where de Mesa sold the property to Ailyn
Gonzales for P3.8 million.
o Mas also drafted an agreement stating that Stemmerik provided the funds for
the purchase.
o Stemmerik paid the full purchase price, for which Mas issued an
acknowledgment receipt.
o Mas became unresponsive to Stemmerik's inquiries about the property's
registration.
o Upon returning to the Philippines in January 2005, Stemmerik discovered aliens
couldn't own land in the Philippines and that the property was inalienable as it
was within a former US Military Reservation.
o Stemmerik filed a disbarment complaint against Mas with the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), citing serious
misconduct and embezzlement of P3.8 million.
o Mas did not respond to the complaint or appear at the mandatory conference.
o The CBD found Mas guilty of using his position to mislead Stemmerik and
recommended his disbarment.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted the CBD's findings and recommended that
Mas return P4.2 million to Stemmerik.
o The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's recommendations.
Issue:
o Was the respondent, Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, properly given notice of the
disbarment proceedings against him?
o Did Atty. Mas commit acts warranting disbarment, including misrepresentation
and embezzlement?
Ruling:
o Yes, the respondent was properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings.
o Yes, Atty. Mas committed acts warranting disbarment, including
misrepresentation and embezzlement.
Ratio:
o The Supreme Court addressed whether Atty. Mas was properly notified of the
disbarment proceedings. Despite Mas's failure to respond or appear, the Court
held that service of the complaint and other orders at his last known address
constituted sufficient notice.
o The Court emphasized that Mas could not evade administrative liability by
concealing his whereabouts, citing the principle "Nemo tenetur ad impossibile"
(the law obliges no one to perform an impossibility).
o On the substantive issues, the Court found that Mas committed a serious breach
of his oath as a lawyer and violated multiple provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
o By advising Stemmerik that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the
Philippines, Mas showed gross ignorance of the law and disrespected the
Constitution, specifically Section 7, Article XII, which prohibits aliens from
acquiring private lands.
o Mas compounded his misconduct by preparing falsified documents and
misappropriating P3.8 million from Stemmerik.
o The Court noted that Mas's actions were not only unethical but also criminal,
involving deceit, dishonesty, and fraudulent acts.
o Consequently, the Court ordered Mas's disbarment, the return of P4.2 million to
Stemmerik with interest, and directed the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
to locate Mas and file appropriate criminal charges against him.
o The Court also mandated regular progress reports from the NBI on the case.

39 | P a g e
 Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre, AC No. 5338, February 23, 2009
Case Summary (A.C. No. 5338)

Parties Involved and Allegations

o The case involves the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre.
o The complainant is Eugenia Mendoza.
o Mendoza accused Deciembre of committing acts of fraud and bringing dishonor
to the legal profession.
o Deciembre allegedly filled up blank postdated checks without Mendoza's
authorization and used them to file unfounded criminal suits against her and
other employees of the Postal Office.
Mendoza's Claims
o Mendoza borrowed P20,000.00 from Rodela Loans, Inc. through Deciembre,
secured by 12 blank checks drawn against the Postal Bank.
o Although she was unable to pay her obligations on time, she made remittances
to Deciembre's Metrobank account.
o Deciembre warned Mendoza that he would deposit a check filled up by him in
the amount of P16,000.00 if she did not pay the penalties and charges.
o Afraid of being sued, Mendoza made the payment.
o Mendoza claimed that Deciembre filled up two other blank checks she issued
with the amount of P50,000.00 each, which she denies borrowing.
o Mendoza further alleged that Deciembre victimized other employees of the
Postal Office by filling up blank checks issued to him as a condition for loans.

Deciembre's Defense
o Deciembre argued that his dealings with Mendoza were done in his private
capacity and not as a lawyer.
o He claimed that Mendoza deceived him by not honoring her commitment and
that the transactions were separate and distinct.
o Deciembre accused Mendoza of filing the disbarment case against him in
retaliation for filing estafa and violation of BP 22 cases against her.

Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

o After a thorough investigation, the IBP found Deciembre guilty of dishonesty.
o The IBP recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Supreme Court Decision

o The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP.
o The Court determined that disbarment, not just suspension, was warranted.
o The Court emphasized that lawyers are expected to uphold high standards of
morality, honesty, and fair dealing.
o The fact that there was no attorney-client relationship in this case and that the
transactions were done in Deciembre's private capacity did not shield him from
liability.
o The Court found that Deciembre had violated several canons and rules of
professional conduct.
o The Court noted that Deciembre had committed similar offenses in other cases.
o Given the seriousness of Deciembre's offenses and the dishonor he brought to
the legal profession, the Court decided to disbar him for life.
o The decision was made to preserve the purity of the legal profession and ensure
the proper and honest administration of justice.

40 | P a g e
 Mendoza v. Atty. Deciembre, AC No. 5338, February 23, 2009
Case Digest (A.C. No. 5338)

Facts:
o In Mendoza v. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5338, decided on February 23, 2009, Eugenia
Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office in Manila, filed a disbarment
petition against Atty. Victor V. Deciembre.
o The complaint, dated September 19, 2000, alleged that Deciembre fraudulently
filled up blank postdated checks without Mendoza's authorization and used
these checks to file unfounded criminal suits against her.
o On October 13, 1998, Mendoza borrowed PHP 20,000 from Rodela Loans, Inc.,
through Deciembre, secured by 12 blank checks drawn against the Postal Bank.
o Despite making remittances totaling PHP 12,910 to Deciembre's Metrobank
account, Mendoza was informed her payments were insufficient to cover
penalties and interests. Deciembre filled up one of the blank checks for PHP
16,000, which Mendoza paid to avoid legal action.
o Subsequently, Mendoza made further payments totaling PHP 35,690.
o Later, Deciembre filled up two more checks for PHP 50,000 each, claiming they
were for a PHP 100,000 loan Mendoza allegedly took on November 15, 1999,
which she denied.
o Mendoza also claimed that Deciembre similarly victimized other postal
employees.
o Deciembre argued that his dealings were in a private capacity and that
Mendoza's disbarment case was retaliatory for his estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 cases
against her.
o The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.
o After hearings, the IBP found Deciembre guilty of gross misconduct and
recommended his indefinite suspension.
o The Supreme Court later escalated this recommendation to disbarment.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Victor V. Deciembre fraudulently fill up blank postdated checks
without authorization from Eugenia Mendoza?
o Did Atty. Deciembre use these checks to file unfounded criminal suits against
Mendoza?
o Should Atty. Deciembre be disbarred for his actions?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre fraudulently filled up blank postdated checks
without authorization from Eugenia Mendoza.
o Yes, Atty. Deciembre used these checks to file unfounded criminal suits against
Mendoza.
o Yes, Atty. Deciembre should be disbarred for his actions.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court found Atty. Victor V. Deciembre guilty of gross misconduct
and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1,
Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03.
o Deciembre's actions, which included filling up blank checks with fictitious
amounts and using them to file criminal cases, demonstrated a pattern of deceit
and harassment.
o The Court emphasized that a lawyer's conduct, whether in a professional or
private capacity, must uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
o Deciembre's failure to mention the alleged PHP 100,000 loan in his earlier
pleadings and the suspicious nature of the checks' dates and amounts further
discredited his defense.
o The Court referenced similar cases involving Deciembre, reinforcing the pattern
of misconduct. Given the severity and repeated nature of his offenses, the Court
concluded that disbarment was necessary to preserve the legal profession's
integrity and public trust.

41 | P a g e
Tapay & Rustia v. Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder, AC No.
9604, March 20, 2013

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9604)

Parties Involved and Allegations

o Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia filed a complaint against Atty. Charlie L.
Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder.
o Allegations include violation of the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism,
Falsification of Public Document, Gross Dishonesty, and Harassment.
o The complaint arose from a case filed against Tapay and Rustia by Nehimias
Divinagracia, Jr. for usurpation of authority, falsification of public document,
and graft and corrupt practices.
o The complaint was allegedly signed by Atty. Bancolo on behalf of Divinagracia.
o Atty. Bancolo denied representing Divinagracia and claimed that the signature
on the complaint was not his.
o Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying
Atty. Bancolo's signature.

Office of the Ombudsman Proceedings

o The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the complaint due to the
falsification of the counsel's signature.
o Divinagracia filed a counter-affidavit denying the falsification and presenting
evidence that the complaint was signed by the office secretary per Atty.
Bancolo's instructions.
o The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for insufficiency of
evidence.

Disbarment Complaint and Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

(IBP)
o Tapay and Rustia filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder, alleging harassment with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo.
o They presented evidence that other letter-complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo
for other clients were forged.
o The IBP conducted an investigation and found Atty. Bancolo guilty of violating
Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o The IBP recommended the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the practice of law
for one year.
o The IBP dismissed the case against Atty. Jarder.

IBP Board of Governors Decision and Motion for Reconsideration

o The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation with modification,
suspending Atty. Bancolo for one year and dismissing the case against Atty.
Jarder.
o Tapay and Rustia filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the
IBP Board.

Supreme Court Review and Decision

o The Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Board.
o They found Atty. Bancolo administratively liable for violating Rule 9.01 and
suspended him from the practice of law for one year.
o The case against Atty. Jarder was dismissed.

42 | P a g e
Tapay & Rustia v. Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder, AC No. 9604,
March 20, 2013
Case Digest (A.C. No. 9604)

Facts:
o Rodrigo E. Tapay and Anthony J. Rustia, employees of the Sugar Regulatory
Administration, filed a complaint against Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty.
Janus T. Jarder.
o Allegations included violations of Canons of Ethics and Professionalism,
falsification of public documents, gross dishonesty, and harassment.
o The case originated in October 2004, when Tapay and Rustia received an order
from the Ombudsman-Visayas to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for
usurpation of authority, falsification of public documents, and graft and corrupt
practices filed by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a co-employee.
o The complaint was allegedly signed by Atty. Bancolo on behalf of Divinagracia,
which Atty. Bancolo denied, claiming the signature was not his.
o Tapay and Rustia accused Divinagracia of falsifying Atty. Bancolo's signature in
their counter-affidavit.
o The Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the complaint against Tapay and
Rustia and ordered separate cases for falsification of public documents and
dishonesty against Divinagracia.
o Divinagracia denied the allegations, showing that the complaint was signed by
the office secretary as per Atty. Bancolo's instructions.
o The Ombudsman dismissed the cases against Divinagracia for lack of
substantial evidence.
o Tapay and Rustia filed a disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder, alleging harassment and
forgery.
o The IBP's Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Bancolo guilty of violating
Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended a two-year suspension; Atty. Jarder was admonished for failing to
exercise command responsibility.
o The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation, suspending Atty.
Bancolo for one year and dismissing the case against Atty. Jarder.
o Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the IBP
Board.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo violate the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism by
allowing a non-lawyer to sign pleadings on his behalf?
o Is Atty. Janus T. Jarder administratively liable for failing to exercise command
responsibility over his law firm?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo violated the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism
and is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
o No, Atty. Janus T. Jarder is not administratively liable, and the complaint against
him is dismissed for lack of merit.

Ratio:
o Atty. Bancolo admitted to allowing a non-lawyer, specifically his office secretary,
to sign pleadings on his behalf, violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
o This rule prohibits lawyers from delegating tasks that can only be performed by
a member of the Bar to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from
incompetence or dishonesty.
o By permitting his secretary to sign pleadings, Atty. Bancolo breached his
professional obligations and engaged in unauthorized practice of law.
o Atty. Bancolo failed to rectify the situation adequately and only provided an
affidavit denying his signature after being confronted.

43 | P a g e
 o The Court found no evidence that Atty. Jarder was directly involved or had
knowledge of the wrongful practice.
o The suspension of Atty. Bancolo for one year was deemed appropriate to uphold
the integrity of the legal profession and serve as a warning against similar
future conduct.
Panote: Complaits Tapay and Rustia file a complaint against Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder for various violations, leading to the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the
practice of law for one year.

Virgilio J. Mapalad v. Atty. Enselmo S. Echanez, AC No. 10911, June 6, 2017

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10911)

Case Background and Allegations

o Administrative case filed against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez for using a false
MCLE compliance number and repeatedly failing to obey legal orders.
o Complainant, Virgilio Mapalad, Sr., alleged that Echanez filed a Notice of Appeal
and a Petition for Injunction, both indicating his MCLE Compliance Number
without indicating the date of issue.
o Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, it was discovered that Echanez had not yet
complied with his MCLE requirements.

Allegations of Serious Malpractice and Grave Misconduct

o Complainant argued that Echanez deliberately misled the courts, parties, and
counsels into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when
he had not.
o Complainant requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to recommend
Echanez's disbarment to the Supreme Court.

Echanez's Failure to Respond and Mandatory Conference

o Despite multiple opportunities, Echanez failed to comply with the court's
resolutions and did not file a comment on the complaint.
o The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) conducted a mandatory
conference/hearing, but neither party appeared.
o The complainant filed his position paper, reiterating the allegations and
arguments in his complaint.

IBP-CBD's Recommendation and Board of Governors' Approval

o After investigation, the IBP-CBD recommended Echanez's disbarment.
o The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
o Echanez was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
o The board recommended Echanez's disbarment and the striking of his name
from the Roll of Attorneys.

Supreme Court's Affirmation of Disbarment

o The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP's recommendation, stating that Echanez's
acts of misconduct were clearly manifest.
o Echanez violated Bar Matter No. 850 by not complying with the MCLE
requirements and repeatedly indicating a false MCLE compliance number in his
pleadings.
o Echanez's actions constituted bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit, as he misled the
courts, litigants, his own clients, and professional colleagues.
o Echanez's actions also violated the Lawyer's Oath and various canons of the
CPR.
o Echanez repeatedly failed to obey legal orders from the trial court, the IBP -CBD,
and the Supreme Court, demonstrating a lack of respect for the authority of the
courts.
o Echanez had already been sanctioned twice by the Supreme Court for similar
offenses, highlighting his culpability.

44 | P a g e
Reasons for Disbarment and Emphasis on Lawyer's Duties
o The Supreme Court affirmed Echanez's disbarment to prevent him from further
engaging in legal practice.
o Lawyers are expected to maintain legal proficiency, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing.
o Lawyers are bound to uphold the laws and should not repudiate or override
them.
o Echanez's name was ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and
circulated to all courts in the country.

Virgilio J. Mapalad v. Atty. Enselmo S. Echanez, AC No. 10911, June 6, 2017

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10911)

Facts:
o Complainant: Virgilio J. Mapalad, Sr. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Anselmo S. Echanez on October 16, 2009, before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP).
o Case Origin: The complaint arose from a case for Recovery of Possession and
Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (Civil Case No. 1635-1-
784) in Santiago City, Isabela, where Mapalad was the plaintiff and Echanez was
the defendants' counsel.
o Appeal Filing: After the plaintiffs won, Echanez filed a Notice of Appeal on May
22, 2009, using his MCLE Compliance No. II-0014038 without the date of issue.
o Continued Usage: Echanez continued using this MCLE Compliance Number in
further documents, including an appellants' brief and a Petition for Injunction in
Special Civil Action No. 3573.
o MCLE Certification: The MCLE Office certified on September 30, 2009, that
Echanez had not complied with MCLE requirements for the First and Second
Compliance Periods.
o Non-Compliance: Echanez failed to respond to multiple resolutions from the
Court and notices from the IBP-CBD and did not attend mandatory conferences.
o Recommendation: The IBP-CBD's Investigating Commissioner recommended
disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted on September 28, 2014.
o No Reconsideration: Echanez did not file any motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
o Discipline Question: Should Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez be administratively
disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?

Ruling:
o Court Decision: The Court ruled in the affirmative, disbarring Atty. Anselmo S.
Echanez from the practice of law and ordering his name to be stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.

Ratio:
o Misconduct Established: Echanez's acts of misconduct were clearly established
and warranted disciplinary action.
o MCLE Violations: Echanez violated Bar Matter No. 850 by failing to comply with
MCLE requirements for the First and Second Compliance Periods, as certified by
the MCLE Office.
o False Compliance: Echanez repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings, acting in bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit, thereby
misleading the courts, litigants, and his clients.
o Oath Violations: This conduct violated the Lawyer's Oath and several provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
and Canon 10, Rule 10.01.

45 | P a g e
 o Disregard for Authority: Echanez repeatedly failed to obey legal orders from the
trial court, the IBP-CBD, and the Supreme Court, demonstrating a lack of respect
for judicial authority.
o Professional Standards: The Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain legal
proficiency and uphold high standards of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
o Affirmation of Sanction: Given Echanez's repeated violations and previous
sanctions, the Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation for
disbarment to prevent further misconduct and uphold the integrity of the legal
profession.

Footnote: In an administrative case, Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez was disbarred for using
a false MCLE compliance number and repeatedly failing to obey legal orders, violating
the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Romulo de Mesa Festin v. Atty. Rolando Zubiri, AC No. 11600, June 19, 2017
Case Summary (A.C. No. 11600)

Parties Involved and Background Information

o Romulo De Mesa Festin filed a complaint against Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
o Festin was elected as Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
in the May 2013 elections.
o Festin's opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa, filed an election protest against him
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
o The RTC issued an order granting Villarosa's motion for execution pending
appeal.
o Festin filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the issuance
of the writ of execution pending appeal.
o The COMELEC issued a TRO, but Zubiri, as counsel for Villarosa, filed five
manifestations insisting on the writ's issuance without serving copies to the
other party.
o The COC eventually issued a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal addressed to the
sheriff, which Festin only found out about when the sheriff attempted to serve it
on him.
o Festin filed a disbarment complaint against Zubiri, alleging violations of
professional ethics.

Allegations and Complaint

o Festin alleged that Zubiri violated his ethical duties by misleading and inducing
the COC to defy lawful orders.
o Festin claimed that Zubiri improperly filed manifestations instead of motions,
sidestepping the requirement of notice of hearing and depriving the other party
of an opportunity to oppose his arguments.

IBP Recommendation and Approval

o The IBP recommended a six-month suspension for Zubiri.
o The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board.

Zubiri's Petition for Review

o Zubiri filed a petition for review before the Court.
o The Court deemed the petition unnecessary.

Court's Findings and Decision

 The Court held that Zubiri should be held administratively liable for his
violations of professional ethics.
 Zubiri's improper filing of manifestations instead of motions deprived the other
party of an opportunity to oppose his arguments.
 The Court suspended Zubiri from the practice of law for three months.

46 | P a g e
  The Court emphasized that a lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice.
 Any conduct that obstructs the administration of justice contravenes this
obligation.

Romulo de Mesa Festin v. Atty. Rolando Zubiri, AC No. 11600, June 19, 2017
Case Digest (A.C. No. 11600)

Facts:
o Romulo De Mesa Festin filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rolando
V. Zubiri for gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
o Festin was elected as Mayor of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in the May 2013
elections.
o Jose Tapales Villarosa, Festin's opponent, contested the election results and
filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46.
o The RTC ruled in favor of Villarosa and issued an Order on January 15, 2014,
granting a motion for execution pending appeal.
o Festin sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on February 13, 2014, directing the RTC to
cease enforcement of its January 15, 2014 Order.
o Despite the TRO, Zubiri, acting as Villarosa's counsel, filed five manifestations
with the Clerk of Court (COC), insisting on the writ's issuance without serving
copies to the opposing party.
o The COC issued the writ, and Festin only became aware of the manifestations
when the sheriff attempted to serve the writ.
o Festin filed a disbarment complaint against Zubiri, alleging violations of Canons
1, 10, 15, and 19 of the CPR.
o Zubiri argued that the RTC had lost jurisdiction over the case and that his
actions were in line with his duty to represent his client diligently.
o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month
suspension for Zubiri, which the Supreme Court later reduced to three months.

Issue:
o Should Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri be held administratively liable for his actions in
filing manifestations instead of motions and misleading the court?
o Did Zubiri's actions violate the ethical duties outlined in the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri is administratively liable for his actions.
o Yes, Zubiri's actions violated the ethical duties outlined in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court found that Zubiri violated Canons 1, 8, and Rule 10.03 of
Canon 10 of the CPR.
o Canon 1 mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for
legal processes.
o Canon 8 requires lawyers to conduct themselves with fairness towards their
professional colleagues.
o Rule 10.03 of Canon 10 requires lawyers to observe procedural rules and not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
o Zubiri improperly filed five manifestations as motions to sidestep the
requirement of notice of hearing, thereby depriving the opposing party of due
process.

47 | P a g e
 o The Court emphasized that a manifestation is usually made for the information
of the court and does not require affirmative action, whereas a motion is an
application for relief and must be accompanied by a notice of hearing and proof
of service to the other party.
o By labeling his motions as manifestations, Zubiri violated procedural rules and
professional ethics.
o The Court also noted that Zubiri's argument that the RTC had lost jurisdiction
and that the COC had a ministerial duty to issue the writ was unpersuasive.
o The RTC had explicitly directed the COC not to issue the writ, and Zubiri's
actions were seen as an attempt to coerce the COC into granting his intended
relief.
o The Court decided that a three-month suspension from the practice of law was a
sufficient penalty to reform Zubiri and serve as a warning against future
violations.

PANOTE: A lawyer is held administratively liable and suspended from the practice of
law for three months for violating professional ethics by misleading the court and
depriving the opposing party of due process in an election protest case.

Spouses Umaging v. Atty. Wallen de Vera, AC No. 10451, February 4 ,2015

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10451)

Parties Involved and Allegations

o Atty. Wallen R. De Vera is the respondent in this case.
o The complainants are Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing.
o The complaint against Atty. De Vera includes allegations of betrayal of trust,
incompetence, and gross misconduct in handling an election protest case.
Background and Payment
o The Umaguing spouses hired Atty. De Vera to handle their daughter's election
protest for the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections in 2007.
o They paid Atty. De Vera an acceptance fee of P30,000.00, as well as additional
fees for court appearances and miscellaneous expenses.

Delay and Rushed Preparation

o Atty. De Vera delayed the preparation and filing of the case, only taking action
when the deadline was approaching.
o He then rushed the preparation of necessary documents, including affidavits of
material witnesses.
o These affidavits were later found to be falsified, as they were signed by
individuals other than the actual witnesses.

Non-Appearance in Court and Alleged Favoritism

o When confronted about his non-appearance in court, Atty. De Vera claimed that
he was hesitant to handle the case due to alleged favoritism by the presiding
judge.
o He demanded an additional payment to secure a favorable decision.

Withdrawal of Counsel and Request for Reimbursement

o The complainants eventually asked Atty. De Vera to withdraw as their counsel.
o They also requested reimbursement of the excessive fees he collected.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. De Vera guilty of
submitting a falsified document.
o The IBP recommended a two-month suspension for Atty. De Vera.

48 | P a g e
Reduction of Suspension by the IBP Board of Governors
o The IBP Board of Governors later reduced the suspension to one month.

Supreme Court Decision

o The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP.
o The Court increased the suspension to six months for Atty. De Vera.
o Atty. De Vera was also ordered to return the amount of P60,000.00 to the
complainants.
o The Court emphasized the importance of honesty, integrity, and
trustworthiness in the legal profession.
o Disciplinary proceedings are meant to ensure that lawyers remain faithful to
their oath and the ethical standards of the profession.

Spouses Umaging v. Atty. Wallen de Vera, AC No. 10451, February 4 ,2015

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10451)

Facts:
o Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing (complainants) filed a case against Atty.
Wallen R. De Vera (respondent) regarding his handling of an election protest.
o The case originated from the 2007 Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections, where
Mariecris Umaguing, the complainants' daughter, lost by one vote to Jose
Gabriel Bungag.
o The complainants hired Atty. De Vera to file an election protest, paying him an
acceptance fee of PHP 30,000 and additional fees totaling PHP 30,000 for court
appearances and miscellaneous expenses.
o Atty. De Vera delayed preparing and filing necessary documents until the last
moment and submitted falsified affidavits of material witnesses, signed by
relatives instead of the actual witnesses.
o The falsification was discovered by the presiding judge, Edgardo Belosillo, and
Atty. De Vera failed to appear in court for a scheduled hearing.
o Atty. De Vera demanded an additional PHP 80,000 from the complainants,
allegedly to bribe the judge for a favorable decision.
o The complainants lost trust in Atty. De Vera, requested his withdrawal as their
counsel, and sought reimbursement of the excessive fees.
o The complainants subsequently filed for Atty. De Vera's disbarment.
o Atty. De Vera denied the accusations, claiming he was unaware of the
falsification and that the signing was done without his knowledge.
o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found merit in the administrative
action and recommended a two-month suspension, later reduced to one month.
o The Supreme Court increased the suspension to six months and ordered the
return of the PHP 60,000 fees.

Issue:
o Should Atty. De Vera be held administratively liable for his actions?
o What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. De Vera's misconduct?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable.
o The appropriate penalty is a six-month suspension from the practice of law and
the return of PHP 60,000 to the complainants.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court confirmed the IBP's findings, indicating that Atty. De Vera
violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by submitting a falsified affidavit.
o The Court emphasized that a lawyer's primary duty is to the administration of
justice, which requires honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

49 | P a g e
 o Atty. De Vera's actions, including the submission of falsified documents and
failure to appear in court, showed gross misconduct and incompetence.
o The Court found Elsa Almera-Almacen's testimony credible, confirming Atty. De
Vera's involvement in the falsification.
o The "Release Waiver & Discharge" document does not absolve Atty. De Vera
from administrative liability.
o The Court cited the case of Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, imposing a six-month
suspension for similar misconduct.
o Additionally, the Court ordered the return of the PHP 60,000 fees, recognizing
Atty. De Vera's admission of receipt.
o The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the
legal profession and the severe consequences of violating ethical standards.

PANOTE: A lawyer is suspended for six months and ordered to return excessive fees
after being found guilty of submitting a falsified document, delaying the preparation
and filing of a case, and failing to appear in court for a scheduled hearing.

Atty. Alcantara v. Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera, AC No. 5859, November 23, 2010
Case Summary (A.C. No. 5859)

Background of the Case

o Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera was disbarred for professional malpractice and gross
misconduct in the case of Alcantara v. De Vera. The case originated from a
civil case filed in 1984, where De Vera was the former counsel of Rosario P.
Mercado.
o A favorable decision was made in the civil case, and a writ of execution pending
appeal was issued in favor of Mercado. De Vera, as Mercado's legal counsel,
garnished the bank deposits of the defendant but did not turn over the
proceeds to Mercado.
o When Mercado demanded the proceeds, De Vera claimed that he had paid part
of the money to the judge as attorney's fees.

Administrative Case for Disbarment

o Mercado filed an administrative case for disbarment against De Vera.
o In 1993, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found De
Vera guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of client's funds.
o The IBP Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension from the
practice of law for De Vera.

Lawsuits Filed by De Vera

o Following the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, De Vera filed a series of
lawsuits against the Mercado family, their family corporation, the corporation's
accountant, the judge who ruled against reopening the case, and the chairman
and members of the IBP Board of Governors. The complainants alleged that De
Vera committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and
used intemperate language in filing these lawsuits.
o The purpose of these cases was seen as harassment and revenge for the one -
year suspension from the practice of law.
o The complainants prayed for De Vera's disbarment for malpractice and gross
misconduct.

Denial of Charges by De Vera

o De Vera denied the charges against him, claiming that the lawsuits were filed in
good faith and based on strong facts.
o He argued that he was merely exhausting legal remedies and seeking relief
elsewhere due to the denial of the trial court to reopen the case.
o De Vera also denied exploiting his client's family problems and using
intemperate language.

50 | P a g e
Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
o After reviewing the case, the IBP Board of Governors found De Vera liable for
professional malpractice and gross misconduct.
o They noted that De Vera filed numerous cases against his former client and
others close to her, with the intention to overwhelm and show that he does not
fold easily after being suspended.
o The nature of the cases, their refiling after dismissal, the timing of the filings,
and the language used in the pleadings and motions indicated revenge and hate
on De Vera's part.

Supreme Court's Agreement with the Findings

o The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors.
o They emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege and lawyers have a
responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice.
o Filing frivolous lawsuits and violating duties as an officer of the court is
considered professional misconduct.
o De Vera not only filed unfounded lawsuits but also violated the confidentiality
and loyalty owed to his former client.

Disbarment of De Vera
o As a result, the Supreme Court disbarred De Vera from the practice of law.
o The disbarment was effective immediately upon De Vera's receipt of the
resolution.

Atty. Alcantara v. Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera, AC No. 5859, November 23, 2010
Case Digest (A.C. No. 5859)

Facts:
o In Alcantara v. De Vera, A.C. No. 5859, decided on November 23, 2010, Atty.
Carmen Leonor M. Alcantara, Vicente P. Mercado, Severino P. Mercado, and
spouses Jesus and Rosario Mercado filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Eduardo C. De Vera.
o Atty. De Vera previously represented Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case in 1984
and an administrative case before the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Davao City Extension Office.
o After a favorable decision for Rosario, a writ of execution pending appeal was
issued, allowing Atty. De Vera to garnish the defendant's bank deposits.
o Atty. De Vera did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario, claiming part of the
money was for the judge and the balance as his attorney's fees.
o Rosario filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. De Vera,
resulting in a 1993 IBP Board of Governors Resolution recommending his one -
year suspension for mishandling client funds.
o Subsequently, Atty. De Vera filed multiple lawsuits against the Mercado family,
their corporation, their accountant, the judge, and the IBP Board members.
o The complainants alleged these actions constituted barratry, forum shopping,
and exploitation of family problems.
o Atty. De Vera denied the allegations, asserting the lawsuits were filed in good
faith and based on strong facts.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera commit professional malpractice and gross
misconduct by filing multiple frivolous lawsuits against his former clients and
others?
o Did Atty. De Vera violate his duties as an officer of the court and his loyalty to
his former client?

51 | P a g e
Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera committed professional malpractice and gross
misconduct.
o Yes, Atty. De Vera violated his duties as an officer of the court and his loyalty to
his former client.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors' findings and
recommendation.
o The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege with conditions,
requiring high standards of legal proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing.
o Atty. De Vera's actions, including filing twelve cases in various fora and re-filing
previously dismissed cases, were acts of revenge and harassment.
o Filing numerous cases is not inherently unethical, but doing so with ill motives
and in bad faith is professionally irresponsible.
o Atty. De Vera's actions were driven by anger and frustration, violating his duties
as an officer of the court and his loyalty to his former client.
o Lawyers must assist in the proper administration of justice and avoid unethical
practices.
o Atty. De Vera violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by using
information from his attorney-client relationship to file malicious lawsuits.
o Consequently, the Court ordered the disbarment of Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera
from the practice of law, effective immediately.

FOOTNOTE: A lawyer is disbarred for professional malpractice and gross

misconduct, including filing frivolous lawsuits against former clients, violating his
duties as an officer of the court and his loyalty to his client.

Santeco v. Atty. Avance, AC No. 5834, February 22, 2011

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5834)

Background of the Case: Santeco v. Avance

o Attorney Luna B. Avance was disbarred for gross misconduct and willful
disobedience of court orders.
o The case originated from an administrative complaint filed by Teresita D.
Santeco against Avance for mishandling a civil case.

Guilty of Gross Misconduct and Abandonment of Client's Cause

o Avance was found guilty of gross misconduct for abandoning her client's cause
in bad faith.
o She refused to comply with lawful orders without any explanation.
o Avance was suspended from the practice of law for five years.

Order to Return Money and Suspension

o Avance was ordered to return the amount of P3,900.00 to the complainant,
which she had received for filing a petition that she never filed.
o She was suspended from the practice of law for five years.

Motion for Reconsideration Denied

o Avance filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.
o Her suspension was still in effect when it was discovered that she had appeared
and participated in three cases under the name "Atty. Liezl Tanglao,"
misrepresenting herself as another attorney.

Indirect Contempt for Misrepresentation

o Avance admitted to being Avance but claimed that her suspension had already
been lifted.
o She later withdrew her appearance from the cases.
o The court found her guilty of indirect contempt for her actions.

52 | P a g e
Failure to Pay Fine and Comply with Court Orders
o Despite being fined and warned, Avance failed to pay the fine imposed by the
court.
o She had not complied with previous court orders to comment on her continued
law practice while suspended.
o Her conduct showed a habit of defying court orders and disrespecting the
judicial institution.

Consequences of Failure to Comply with Court Directives

o Failure to comply with court directives constitutes gross misconduct,
insubordination, or disrespect.
o This can lead to suspension or disbarment.

Disbarment and Removal from the Roll of Attorneys

o Avance's repeated disobedience of court orders and her indifference to reform
herself led to her disbarment.
o The court ordered her name to be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Santeco v. Atty. Avance, AC No. 5834, February 22, 2011

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5834)
Facts:
o The case "Santeco v. Avance" involves an administrative complaint by Teresita D.
Santeco against Atty. Luna B. Avance.
o The complaint stemmed from Atty. Avance's mishandling of Civil Case No. 97-
275, which sought to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for
reconveyance and damages, filed in the RTC of Makati City.
o On December 11, 2003, the Supreme Court found Atty. Avance guilty of gross
misconduct for abandoning her client's cause in bad faith and persistently
refusing to comply with lawful orders without any explanation.
o Atty. Avance was suspended from practicing law for five years and ordered to
return P3,900.00 to Santeco for a petition for certiorari that was never filed.
o Her motion for reconsideration was denied on February 24, 2004.
o Despite her suspension, Atty. Avance appeared in three cases before the RTC of
Iba, Zambales, misrepresenting herself as "Atty. Liezl Tanglao."
o When confronted, she admitted her true identity but falsely claimed her
suspension had been lifted.
o The Court required her to comment on these actions, but she failed to respond.
o On September 29, 2009, the Court found her guilty of indirect contempt and
fined her P30,000.00, which she also failed to pay.
o This led to the Court's decision to disbar her.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Luna B. Avance commit gross misconduct and willful disobedience of
court orders?
o Should Atty. Luna B. Avance be disbarred for her actions?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Luna B. Avance committed gross misconduct and willful disobedience
of court orders.
o Yes, Atty. Luna B. Avance should be disbarred for her actions.

53 | P a g e
Ratio:
o The Supreme Court's decision to disbar Atty. Luna B. Avance was based on her
repeated and willful disobedience of court orders, which constitutes gross
misconduct.
o As an officer of the court, a lawyer is expected to uphold the dignity and
authority of the judiciary by complying with its orders and processes.
o Atty. Avance's actions, including continuing to practice law while suspended
and misrepresenting herself as another attorney, demonstrated a blatant
disregard for the Court's authority.
o Her failure to respond to the Court's directives and to pay the imposed fine
further underscored her disrespect and irresponsibility.
o The Court emphasized that such behavior is unbecoming of a member of the
bar and warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
o Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred for
gross misconduct and willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court.
o Atty. Avance's conduct clearly showed she was unfit to discharge the duties of
an officer of the court, leading to her disbarment and the removal of her name
from the Roll of Attorneys.

PANOTE: A lawyer is disbarred for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of court
orders, including misrepresenting herself as another attorney and failing to pay a fine
for contempt of court.

Aninon v. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., AC No. 5098, April 11, 2012
Case Summary (AC No. 5098)

Parties Involved and Background Information

o Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. - the respondent in the disbarment complaint
o Josefina M. Anion - the complainant who engaged Atty. Sabitsana's legal services
o Zenaida L. Cañete - the legal wife of the complainant's late husband
o Atty. Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr. - the lawyer who allegedly instigated the
disbarment complaint
o The case involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sabitsana for violating
the lawyer's duty to preserve confidential information and representing
conflicting interests.
o Atty. Sabitsana prepared and executed a Deed of Sale for a property owned by
Josefina Anion's late common-law husband.
o Atty. Sabitsana later filed a civil case against Josefina Anion on behalf of
Zenaida Cañete, seeking the annulment of the Deed of Sale.
o Josefina Anion accused Atty. Sabitsana of using confidential information
obtained from her in filing the case

Atty. Sabitsana's Defense

o Atty. Sabitsana admitted advising Josefina Anion in the preparation and
execution of the Deed of Sale.
o He denied receiving any confidential information from her.
o Atty. Sabitsana claimed that the disbarment complaint was instigated by Atty.
Gabino Velasquez, Jr., who had lost a court case against him.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint against
Atty. Sabitsana.
o The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable for
representing conflicting interests.
o The IBP Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension from the practice
of law.

54 | P a g e
 o The recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
o Atty. Sabitsana's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue: Guilt of Misconduct for Representing Conflicting Interests

o The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests.
o The court ruled in favor of the complainant, agreeing with the findings and
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
o The court emphasized the importance of trust and confidentiality between a
lawyer and client.
o The court also emphasized the duty to avoid representing conflicting interests.
o The court found that Atty. Sabitsana violated this duty by accepting the
engagement from Zenaida Cañete despite knowing the clashing interests
between his two clients.
o The court noted that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the written consent of both
clients, as required by the rules.

Court's Decision and Imposed Penalty

o Based on the evidence presented, the court found Atty. Sabitsana guilty of
misconduct.
o The court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
o The court rejected Atty. Sabitsana's argument that the charge in the complaint
was only for the disclosure of confidential information.
o The court stated that the complaint contained allegations of acts that
constituted a violation of the rule on representing conflicting interests.
o Conclusion
o The court upheld the findings and recommendations of the IBP.
o Atty. Sabitsana was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Aninon v. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., AC No. 5098, April 11, 2012
Case Digest (A.C. No. 5098)

Facts:
o Josefina M. Aniñon filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio
Sabitsana, Jr.
o Aniñon accused Atty. Sabitsana of violating his duty to preserve confidential
information and representing conflicting interests.
o Aniñon had hired Atty. Sabitsana to prepare and execute a Deed of Sale for
land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr.
o Subsequently, Atty. Sabitsana represented Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of
Brigido Caneja, Jr., in a civil case against Aniñon seeking the annulment of the
same Deed of Sale.
o Aniñon alleged that Atty. Sabitsana used confidential information obtained
from her to file the civil case.
o Atty. Sabitsana admitted to assisting Aniñon with the Deed of Sale but denied
receiving any confidential information.
o He claimed the disbarment complaint was instigated by Atty. Gabino
Velasquez, Jr., who had previously lost a court case against him.
o The IBP Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors found
Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable and recommended his suspension from
the practice of law for one year.

Issue:
o Whether Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests.

55 | P a g e
Ruling:
o The Supreme Court found Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. guilty of misconduct
for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the IBP and
suspended Atty. Sabitsana from the practice of law for one year.

Ratio:
o The relationship between a lawyer and a client must be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence, necessitating strict adherence to
confidentiality and loyalty.
o Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
lawyer from representing conflicting interests without the written consent of
all concerned parties after full disclosure of the facts.

The Court identified three tests to determine a violation of this rule:

1. Whether a lawyer's duty to one client requires opposition to another client's
claim.
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the lawyer's full
discharge of duty to the original client.
3. Whether the lawyer would use confidential information acquired from one client
against another client.

The Court found substantial evidence showing that Atty. Sabitsana violated these
principles.
o He initially provided legal services to Aniñon regarding the Deed of Sale, then
later represented Caete in seeking the annulment of the same deed, thereby
representing conflicting interests.
o Atty. Sabitsana failed to disclose his dual representation to both clients and did
not obtain their written consent.
o The Court emphasized that the essence of due process was observed as Atty.
Sabitsana was given the opportunity to be heard and to explain his side.
o The Court's decision aims to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and
ensure the proper administration of justice by holding lawyers accountable for
their misconduct.

Daging v. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis, AC No. 9395, November 12, 2014
Case Summary (A.C. No. 9395)

Parties Involved and Allegations

o Daria O. Daging filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Riz Tingalon L. Davis.
o Daging alleged that she entered into a Retainer Agreement with Davis & Sabling
Law Office, signed by Davis and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling.
o Despite being her counsel, Davis represented and defended Novie Balageo, who
was impleaded as one of the defendants in an ejectment case filed by Daging.
o Daging claimed that Davis acted as a business partner of Balageo in operating
her bar, which was taken over by Balageo after the termination of the lease.
o Respondent's Defense
o Davis denied the allegations and argued that Balageo was already his client
before Daging engaged his services.
o Davis claimed that he had no knowledge or information regarding Daging's
business and that it was Atty. Sabling who initiated the proposal for the
Retainer Agreement.
o Davis admitted representing Balageo in the ejectment case but denied taking
advantage of the Retainer Agreement.

56 | P a g e
 o Findings of the Investigating Commissioner and IBP Board of Governors
o The Investigating Commissioner found Davis guilty of betrayal of his client's
trust and misuse of information obtained from his client.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, imposing a one-year suspension from the practice
of law.
o Upon motion of Davis, the penalty was reduced to six months suspension.

Supreme Court's Decision

o The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the IBP and found Davis guilty of
violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o Rule 15.03 prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests without the
written consent of all concerned.
o The Court emphasized that the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests is absolute, even if the lawyer acted in good faith.
o The Court noted that Davis should have immediately informed both Daging and
Balageo that he and his law firm cannot represent any of them to avoid
representing conflicting interests.

Penalty Imposed and Warning

o The Court affirmed the six-month suspension imposed by the IBP.
o Davis was warned that a similar offense in the future would result in a stiffer
penalty.
o The Court directed Davis to inform them of the date of receipt of the resolution.

Daging v. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis, AC No. 9395, November 12, 2014
Case Digest (A.C. No. 9395)

Facts:
o An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Daria O. Daging
against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis.
o The complaint was brought before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Benguet Chapter.
o Daging owned and operated Nashville Country Music Lounge in Baguio City,
which she leased from Benjie Pinlac.
o Pinlac terminated the lease due to delinquent rental payments and took
inventory of the bar's equipment with Novie Balageo and respondent Davis.
o The bar was renamed Amarillo Music Bar, and Daging filed an ejectment case
against Pinlac and Balageo.
o Daging had a Retainer Agreement with Davis & Sabling Law Office, where Davis
was a partner.
o Despite this agreement, Davis represented Balageo in the ejectment case, filing
an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
o The Investigating Commissioner found Davis guilty of betraying Daging's trust
and misusing information obtained from her to her disadvantage.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation to suspend Davis
from practicing law for one year, later reduced to six months upon his motion.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis violate the Code of Professional Responsibility
by representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all
concerned parties?

57 | P a g e
Ruling:
o Yes, the Court found Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o He was suspended from the practice of law for six months after representing
conflicting interests in an ejectment case, violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ratio:
o The Court ruled that Davis clearly violated Rule 15.03, which prohibits lawyers
from representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all
concerned parties after full disclosure of the facts.
o The respondent claimed he was not aware of any confidential information
between his partner Atty. Sabling and Daging.
o The Court maintained that the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests is absolute.
o Emphasized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
o Davis should have informed both Daging and Balageo of the conflict and
advised them to find other legal representation.
o The penalty for such misconduct ranges from reprimand to suspension, and the
Court adopted the IBP's recommendation of a six-month suspension.

Tulio v. Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin, AC No. 7110, April 20, 2016

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7110)

Background and Relationship between Arthur S. Tulio and Atty. Gregory F.

Buhangin
 Arthur S. Tulio filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Gregory F.
Buhangin.
 Tulio and Buhangin had a long-standing relationship, with Buhangin initially
serving as Tulio's surveyor and later becoming his lawyer.
 Tulio sought Buhangin's legal advice regarding a property owned by his mother,
which was transferred to third parties.
 Buhangin prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights in Tulio's favor.
 Tulio engaged Buhangin's services to represent him in a case against the heirs of
Artemio E. Patacsil.

Allegations of Misconduct by Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin

 Tulio claimed that he exclusively paid the defendants in the case and reached a
settlement.
 However, to Tulio's surprise, Buhangin later represented Tulio's siblings and
filed a complaint against Tulio over the same legal matters.
 Tulio alleged that Buhangin made misrepresentations in the complaint and
violated his duty of loyalty as a lawyer.

Motion to Disqualify Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

 Tulio filed a motion to disqualify Buhangin from representing his siblings.
 Buhangin subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.

Findings and Recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

 The IBP found Buhangin guilty of violating the rule on conflict of interest.
 The IBP recommended a two-month suspension from the practice of law for
Buhangin.

58 | P a g e
Supreme Court's Modification of the Penalty
 The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the IBP.
 The Supreme Court increased the suspension to six months.
 The increased penalty was due to Buhangin's wanton disregard of the IBP's
orders, which caused undue delay in the resolution of the case.

Tulio v. Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin, AC No. 5098, April 20, 2016

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5098)

Facts:
 The case "Tulio v. Buhangin" involves a disbarment complaint filed by Arthur S.
Tulio against Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin.
 The complaint is for gross dishonesty and violation of the Lawyer's Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Tulio and Atty. Buhangin had a professional relationship dating back to when
Buhangin was a surveyor.
 Tulio sought Buhangin's legal advice concerning a property owned by his
mother, which had been transferred to third parties.
 On June 29, 2000, Buhangin prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights
in favor of Tulio, signed by his siblings.
 Tulio engaged Buhangin to represent him in a case for specific performance and
damages (Civil Case No. 4866-R) before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch 3.
 On December 10, 2005, Buhangin represented Tulio's siblings in a complaint
against him (Civil Case No. 6185-R) for rescission of the deed of waiver of rights,
which Buhangin himself had prepared and notarized.
 Tulio filed a Motion to Disqualify Buhangin for unethical conduct.
 Buhangin subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel due to conflict of
interest.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Buhangin guilty of violating the
rule on conflict of interest and recommended a two-month suspension.
 The Supreme Court modified the penalty to a six-month suspension.

Issue:
 Did Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin violate the rule on conflict of interest by
representing conflicting interests?
 What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. Buhangin's actions?

Ruling:
 Yes, Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin violated the rule on conflict of interest.
 Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Ratio:
 The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the IBP-CBD that Atty.
Buhangin violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 This rule prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests without the
written consent of all concerned parties after full disclosure of the facts.
 The prohibition is based on public policy and the need to maintain client trust
and confidence.
 The Court cited the Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat case, which defines conflict of
interest as representing inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
 Buhangin's actions in representing Tulio's siblings against Tulio, his former
client, constituted a clear conflict of interest.
 Buhangin's failure to comply with IBP orders and his absence from mandatory
conferences demonstrated a wanton disregard for the IBP's authority.

59 | P a g e
  This further justified the increased penalty.
 The Court concluded that Buhangin's conduct violated his duty of loyalty and
fidelity to his client, warranting a six-month suspension from the practice of
law.

PANOTE: Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is suspended from the practice of law for six
months after being found guilty of violating the rule on conflict of interest by
representing conflicting interests in a case filed by Arthur S. Tulio.

Foster v. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, AC No. 10579, December 10, 2014

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10579)

Background of the Case

o Lawyer Atty. Jaime V. Agtang was accused by his client, Erlinda Foster, of
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, representing conflicting interests,
and demanding bribes.
o The case was brought to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Foster,
who accused Agtang of unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful acts as a
lawyer.

IBP Proceedings
o The IBP received the complaint and directed Agtang to file his answer within 15
days.
o Agtang failed to file his answer within the given timeframe and only submitted
it five days before the scheduled conference.
o During the conference, Agtang arrived late and only the complainant and her
husband were present.
o The Investigating Commissioner reviewed the documents submitted by Foster
and informed the parties that the case would be resolved based on the
documents on file.

Allegations against Agtang

o Foster alleged that she engaged Agtang's legal services for a case involving a
deed of absolute sale.
o She paid Agtang an acceptance fee and incidental expenses.
o Agtang later asked for a loan of P100,000 for the repair of his car, which Foster
agreed to lend without interest.
o Agtang also received P150,000 from Foster as a filing fee for the case, claiming
it was necessary due to the high value of the land and expenses for court
employees.
o It was later discovered that the actual filing fee was only P22,410.
o Foster also discovered that Agtang had notarized the document being
questioned in the case.
o Agtang further requested additional amounts from Foster, purportedly for
representation expenses and bribes for the judge handling the case.
o Foster terminated Agtang's services and demanded the return of the money he
received from her, but Agtang failed to comply.

Findings and Recommendations

o The Investigating Commissioner found Agtang guilty of ethical impropriety and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year.
o The IBP-BOG adopted and approved this recommendation with modification,
reducing the suspension to three months.
o They also ordered Agtang to return the balance of the filing fee and the loan he
received from Foster.

60 | P a g e
Court Decision
o The Court upheld the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP-BOG.
o They found Agtang guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct,
demanding bribes, and representing conflicting interests.
o The Court emphasized the duty of lawyers to be honest and transparent with
their clients and to avoid conflicts of interest.
o Agtang's actions undermined the trust and faith of the public in the legal
profession and the judiciary.
o As a result, the Court ordered Agtang's disbarment and the return of the money
he received from Foster.
o However, they clarified that they could not order Agtang to return money
borrowed from Foster in his private capacity, as their findings in administrative
cases have no bearing on liabilities unrelated to the lawyer's professional
engagement.

Foster v. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, AC No. 10579, December 10, 2014

Case Digest (A.C. No. 10579)

Facts:
o Erlinda Foster filed a complaint against Atty. Jaime V. Agtang for unethical
conduct.
o The complaint was received by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on May 31, 2011.
o Foster accused Agtang of unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful acts.
o Agtang failed to promptly file an answer and arrived late to the mandatory
conference on November 16, 2011.
o Foster provided documents supporting her claims, and the case was submitted
for resolution based on these documents.
o The complaint involved a deed of absolute sale with Tierra Realty, notarized by
Agtang.
o Foster paid Agtang P20,000 as an acceptance fee and P5,000 for incidental
expenses.
o Agtang borrowed P100,000 from Foster for car repairs, evidenced by a
promissory note.
o Agtang requested P150,000 for filing fees, which Foster later discovered only
amounted to P22,410.
o Agtang demanded P50,000 for a supposed bribe to the judge, which Foster
partially paid.
o Foster's case was dismissed on September 29, 2010, but she was not informed
by Agtang and learned of it herself in December 2010.
o Foster terminated Agtang's services in February 2011 and requested the return
of the money paid, which Agtang did not do.
o Agtang admitted to notarizing the deed and receiving payments but denied
asking for loans or bribes.
o The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Agtang guilty of ethical impropriety
and recommended a one-year suspension.
o The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified this to a three-month suspension
and ordered Agtang to return P127,590 to Foster.
o The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Agtang violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

61 | P a g e
Issue:
o Did Atty. Jaime V. Agtang violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct?
o Did Atty. Jaime V. Agtang represent conflicting interests in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility?
o What is the appropriate penalty for Atty. Jaime V. Agtang's actions?
o Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Jaime V. Agtang violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
o Yes, Atty. Jaime V. Agtang represented conflicting interests in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
o The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Jaime V. Agtang from the practice of law and
ordered him to pay Erlinda Foster P127,590, P50,000, and P2,500.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court found Agtang guilty of violating Rules 1 and 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
o Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
o Agtang misled Foster about the filing fees, demanding P150,000 when the actual
amount was only P22,410, which was deemed dishonest and deceitful.
o Agtang failed to account for the money received from Foster, violating the
fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship.
o His failure to return the excess money upon demand indicated
misappropriation.
o Agtang's request for P50,000 as a bribe for the judge demonstrated gross
misconduct, undermining public trust in the legal profession and the judiciary.
o Lawyers must maintain the highest standards of morality, honesty, and
integrity.
o Agtang's actions, including borrowing money from Foster and failing to repay it,
violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from
borrowing money from clients unless the client's interests are fully protected.
o The Court found substantial evidence that Agtang had previously rendered
services to Tierra Realty, the opposing party in Foster's case, creating a conflict
of interest and violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR.
o Agtang's involvement in notarizing the deed of sale, which was the subject of
the dispute, further demonstrated this conflict.
o The Court concluded that Agtang's actions constituted gross misconduct and
warranted the penalty of disbarment.
o The Court ordered Agtang to return the amounts related to his professional
relationship with Foster, including the balance of the filing fees and the money
requested for the judge.
o The Court clarified that it could not order the return of money borrowed in
Agtang's private capacity, as this was outside the scope of the disciplinary
proceedings.

62 | P a g e
 Chang v. Atty. Jose Hidalgo, AC No. 6934, April 6, 2016
Case Summary (A.C. No. 6934)

Case Background and Allegations

o Complainant: Helen Chang
o Respondent: Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo
o Allegations against Atty. Hidalgo:
o Failing to handle Chang's cases to the best of his ability
o Not dealing with Chang honestly and candidly
o Sending another lawyer without Chang's consent, resulting in the dismissal of the
cases

Failure to Respond and Referral to Integrated Bar of the Philippines

o Atty. Hidalgo failed to comment on the complaint.
o The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
o During the mandatory conference, only Chang appeared as Atty. Hidalgo did not
receive the notice.

Findings and Recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner

o The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Hidalgo guilty of gross misconduct.
o Recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

Decision of the Board of Governors

o The Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but decreased the penalty
to a one-year suspension.
o Ordered Atty. Hidalgo to return the amount of P61,000 to Chang.

Motion for Reconsideration and Denial

o Atty. Hidalgo filed a motion for reconsideration.
o Admitted receiving money from Chang but claimed attending the hearings and
filing a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel due to Chang's uncooperative behavior.
o The motion was denied by the Board of Governors.

Supreme Court Decision

o Atty. Hidalgo found guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
o Established that Atty. Hidalgo withdrew from the cases without Chang's consent
and without filing the proper motion before the courts.
o Emphasized a lawyer's duty to diligently represent their client and cannot
simply withdraw from a case without notice.
o Imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
o Ordered Atty. Hidalgo to return the amount of P61,500 to Chang with interest.

Importance of a Lawyer's Duty to the Client

o The case highlights the importance of a lawyer's duty to their client.
o Failing to fulfill this duty can lead to serious consequences, such as suspension
from the practice of law.
o Lawyers have an obligation to diligently represent their clients and cannot
withdraw from a case without proper notice and consent.

63 | P a g e
 Chang v. Atty. Jose Hidalgo, AC No.6934, April 6, 2016
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6934)

Facts:
o Complainant Helen Chang filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jose R.
Hidalgo on November 7, 2005.
o Chang alleged that Atty. Hidalgo failed to handle her collection cases with due
competence and diligence.
o Hidalgo received PHP 61,500.00 in legal fees from Chang.
o PHP 52,000.00 was issued through five checks.
o An additional PHP 9,500.00 was given as a hearing fee.
o Despite receiving payment, Hidalgo did not attend the hearings.
o Hidalgo sent another lawyer to the hearings without Chang's consent, leading to
the dismissal of her cases.
o Hidalgo moved addresses multiple times, complicating the service of notices.
o Eventually, Hidalgo received the notice but failed to comment or appear in
mandatory conferences.
o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Hidalgo guilty of gross
misconduct and violations of Canons 17, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
o The IBP initially recommended a two-year suspension, which was later reduced
to one year by the Board of Governors.
o Hidalgo was also ordered to return the PHP 61,500.00 to Chang with legal
interest.

Issue:
1. Is Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo guilty of gross misconduct for failing to render legal
services despite receiving payment?
2. Did Atty. Hidalgo violate Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Ruling:
1. Yes, Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct.
2. Yes, Atty. Hidalgo violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court held that Atty. Hidalgo's actions constituted gross
misconduct.
o Canon 17 mandates lawyers to remain loyal to their client's cause and respect
the trust and confidence placed in them.
o Canon 18 requires lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence.
o Hidalgo failed to attend the hearings and sent another lawyer without Chang's
consent, causing her cases to be dismissed.
o He did not follow proper procedure for withdrawing as counsel under Rule 138,
Section 26 of the Rules of Court, which requires client consent or court
approval.
o There was no evidence that Hidalgo performed any substantial work on Chang's
cases to justify retaining the legal fees.
o The court upheld the IBP's recommendation to suspend Hidalgo from legal
practice for one year.
o Additionally, Hidalgo was ordered to return the PHP 61,500.00 to Chang with 6%
annual interest from the date of the resolution until fully paid.
o The decision was based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant
jurisprudence.

64 | P a g e
 Sison, Jr., v. Atty. Manuel Camacho, AC No. 10910, January 12, 2016
Case Summary (A.C. No. 10910)

Background of the Case

o Atty. Manuel N. Camacho was disbarred and ordered to return money to his
client for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o The case was filed by complainant Atty. Antero M. Sison, Jr., president of
Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings, Inc. (MDAHI), against Atty. Camacho.
o Atty. Camacho was accused of entering into a compromise agreement without
written authority and failing to account for received funds.

Allegations against Atty. Camacho

o Atty. Sison alleged that Atty. Camacho was the counsel of MDAHI in an
insurance claim action against Paramount Life & General Insurance Corp.
(Paramount Insurance).
o Atty. Camacho proposed to increase their claim to P64,412,534.18, which
required additional docket fees of P1,288,260.00.
o MDAHI agreed and gave the money to Atty. Camacho, who promised to issue a
receipt but never did.
o Atty. Sison later discovered that the RTC had already rendered a decision in
favor of MDAHI granting its insurance claim.

Unauthorized Compromise Agreement

o Atty. Camacho sent a letter recommending a settlement with Paramount
Insurance, but MDAHI refused the offer and did not give its consent.
o Despite this, Atty. Camacho filed a Satisfaction of Judgment stating that the
parties had entered into a compromise agreement.
o Atty. Sison confronted Atty. Camacho, who admitted to not paying the
additional docket fees and claimed that he gave it to the clerk of court.

Atty. Camacho's Defense

o Atty. Camacho denied the allegations and argued that he had the authority to
FFFFFFenter into the compromise agreement.
o He claimed that the alleged docket fees formed part of his attorney's fees.
o He cited an RTC order that considered the amount as part of his unpaid
attorney's fees.

Guilty Verdict and Recommended Penalty

o The IBP-CBD found Atty. Camacho guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended his suspension for one year.
o The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the
recommendation but lowered the penalty to six months suspension.
o Atty. Camacho filed a motion for reconsideration, which was partially granted,
dismissing the charge regarding the failure to account for the money due to a
pending criminal case.

Court's Decision and Disbarment

o The case was elevated to the Court, which found Atty. Camacho guilty of
entering into a compromise agreement without written authority and failing to
account for the money.
o The Court emphasized the fiduciary duty of lawyers to their clients and the
importance of honesty and integrity in their dealings.
o Atty. Camacho's actions were deemed reprehensible, and he was disbarred and
ordered to return the money to MDAHI within 90 days.

65 | P a g e
 Sison, Jr., v. Atty. Manuel Camacho, AC No. 10910, January 12, 2016
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10910)

Facts:
o Atty. Antero M. Sison, Jr., president of Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness
Holdings, Inc. (MDAHI), filed a complaint against Atty. Manuel N. Camacho.
o Filed on September 17, 2012, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
o Complaint charged Atty. Camacho with violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
o Specific violations included Rule 1.01 for dishonesty and Rule 16.01 for failure
to account for funds.
o Atty. Camacho represented MDAHI in an insurance claim against Paramount Life
& General Insurance Corp.
o Initial insurance claim was P14,863,777.00; proposed increase to P64,412,534.18
required additional docket fees of P1,288,260.00.
o MDAHI provided the amount, but Atty. Camacho did not issue a receipt.
o RTC awarded approximately P65,000,000.00 in favor of MDAHI on May 26,
2011.
o Atty. Camacho recommended a P15,000,000.00 settlement, which MDAHI
refused.
o On August 15, 2011, without MDAHI's written consent, Atty. Camacho filed a
Satisfaction of Judgment indicating a compromise agreement.
o Atty. Sison confronted Atty. Camacho, who claimed he gave the docket fees to
the clerk of court.
o Dissatisfied, Atty. Sison sent a letter on August 24, 2011, expressing alarm over
the compromise and alleged bribery.
o Atty. Camacho denied the allegations, claiming the docket fees were part of his
attorney's fees.
o IBP-CBD found Atty. Camacho guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 16.01,
recommending a one-year suspension, later reduced to six months by the IBP
Board of Governors.
o The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
1. Did Atty. Camacho violate Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by entering into a compromise agreement without the written authority of his
client?
2. Did Atty. Camacho violate Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by failing to account for the money intended for additional docket fees?

Ruling:
1. Yes, Atty. Camacho violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
2. Yes, Atty. Camacho violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court found that Atty. Camacho violated Rule 1.01 by entering
into a compromise agreement without the written authority of his client,
MDAHI.
o Lawyers must act with honesty and integrity, especially in fiduciary
relationships with clients.
o Article 1878 of the Civil Code and Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
require special authority for compromise agreements.
o Despite MDAHI's refusal, Atty. Camacho proceeded without written authority,
breaching client trust.
o Atty. Camacho also violated Rule 16.01 by failing to account for the
P1,288,260.00 intended for additional docket fees.

66 | P a g e
 o The amount was not used for its specified purpose, and Atty. Camacho's
defense was unsubstantiated and contradictory.
o The fiduciary duty of lawyers includes issuing receipts and properly accounting
for client funds.
o Atty. Camacho's actions were deemed a gross violation of professional ethics,
leading to disbarment.
o The Court ordered Atty. Camacho to return P1,288,260.00 to MDAHI within
ninety days from the finality of the decision.

Pedro Ramos v. Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan, AC No. 11128, April 6,

2016
Case Summary (A.C. No. 11128)

Background of the Case

 Lawyer Maria Nympha C. Mandagan was found guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for one
year.
 The case was filed by Pedro Ramos, who accused Atty. Mandagan of gross
misconduct for failing to return money that was intended for bail in a criminal
case.
Allegations and Proof of Payment
 Ramos claimed that Atty. Mandagan demanded P300,000.00 from him for the
bail bond in his murder case before the Sandiganbayan.
 An additional P10,000.00 was collected by Atty. Mandagan for operating
expenses.
 Ramos provided an Acknowledgment Receipt as proof of payment for both
amounts.
Failure to Return the Money
 Despite the denial of Ramos' petition for bail and the demand from Ramos'
counsel, Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning the
P300,000.00.
IBP Order and Atty. Mandagan's Answer
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued an Order directing Atty.
Mandagan to submit her Answer to the complaint.
 Atty. Mandagan argued in her Answer that the P300,000.00 was not intended
for bail but for mobilization expenses for preparation of witnesses and
defenses.
 She also claimed that Ramos never paid her for acceptance, appearance fees,
and legal services rendered.
Mandatory Conference and Report and Recommendation
 During the mandatory conference, only Ramos' counsel appeared, while Atty.
Mandagan was absent.
 The IBP-CBD issued an Order terminating the conference and directed both
parties to submit their position papers.
 The IBP-CBD later issued a Report and Recommendation finding Atty.
Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and failure to render an accounting of
funds.
 They recommended a one-year suspension, which was adopted and approved
by the IBP Board of Governors.

Motion for Reconsideration and Court's Decision

67 | P a g e
  Atty. Mandagan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP
Board of Governors.
 After reviewing the case, the Court found the Report and Recommendation of
the IBP-CBD to be proper.
 The Court emphasized the high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing expected from lawyers.
 Atty. Mandagan's failure to act in accordance with the rules and return the
money to Ramos despite demand was highlighted.
 The Court rejected Atty. Mandagan's defense that the money was for
mobilization expenses, as she failed to substantiate her claim.
 Atty. Mandagan's failure to make an accounting or return the money was
deemed a violation of the trust reposed on her.
Violation and Suspension
 Atty. Mandagan was found guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule
16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 She was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
 A warning was given that a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
 The resolution was entered into Atty. Mandagan's personal record as a member
of the Philippine Bar and circulated to all courts in the country.

Pedro Ramos v. Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan, AC No. 11128, April 6,

2016 Case Digest (A.C. No. 11828)

Facts:
 Pedro Ramos filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Maria Nympha C.
Mandagan for gross misconduct.
 Atty. Mandagan allegedly demanded PHP 300,000 from Ramos for bail in a
murder case and collected an additional PHP 10,000 for operating expenses.
 Atty. Mandagan issued acknowledgment receipts for both amounts.
 Ramos' petition for bail was denied, and Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his
counsel without returning the PHP 300,000, despite demands from Ramos' new
counsel. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) directed Atty. Mandagan to submit her Answer.
 Atty. Mandagan claimed the PHP 300,000 was for mobilization expenses, not
bail, and that Ramos never paid for her legal services.
 During the mandatory conference, only Ramos' counsel appeared; Atty.
Mandagan was absent.
 The IBP-CBD found Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and failure to
account for funds, recommending a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board
of Governors adopted. Atty. Mandagan's Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, leading to this review by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
 Whether Atty. Mandagan committed gross misconduct by failing to return the
PHP 300,000 to Pedro Ramos, in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court found Atty. Mandagan guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule
16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Atty. Mandagan was suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective
upon receipt of the resolution.
 The Court warned that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more
severely.
68 | P a g e
Ratio:
 The practice of law is a privilege that requires maintaining high standards of
legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
 Lawyers must account for and return money received for a specific purpose if
not used for that purpose.
 Atty. Mandagan did not deny receiving PHP 300,000 for bail but failed to return
it after the bail petition was denied.
 Her defense that the amount was for mobilization expenses was
unsubstantiated.
 Atty. Mandagan's actions violated Canon 16 of the CPR, mandating lawyers to
hold in trust and account for all client funds.
 Her failure to return the money was a gross violation of professional ethics and
impaired public confidence in the legal profession.
 Such misconduct deserves punishment to uphold the integrity of the legal
profession.

Pacao v. Atty. Sinamar Limos, AC No. 11246, June 14, 2016

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11246)

Case Background and Parties Involved

o The case of Pacao v. Limos involves Atty. Sinamar Limos who was disbarred for
grave misconduct and willful insubordination, including deceit and
misrepresentation.
o The case was filed by Arnold Pacao, who sought the disbarment of Atty. Limos
for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
Facts of the Case
o In March 2008, Pacao's wife, Mariadel Pacao, who was the former vault
custodian of BHF Pawnshop, was charged with qualified theft by BHF.
o Atty. Limos appeared as counsel for BHF during the preliminary investigation
and the subsequent filing of the case before the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City.
o Pacao initiated negotiations with BHF, through Atty. Limos, for a possible
settlement to resolve the case.
o Atty. Limos represented that she was duly authorized by BHF.
o An agreement was reached wherein Pacao would pay an initial amount of
P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos, who would then deliver a signed affidavit of
desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve the
compromise agreement for filing with the court.
o Pacao gave the initial amount of P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos on October 29,
2009, who signed an Acknowledgment Receipt.
o However, Atty. Limos failed to meet the terms of their agreement and did not
deliver the required documents.
o Atty. Limos still attempted to get the next installment from Pacao, but he
refused.
o In June 2010, Pacao learned that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and
was not authorized to negotiate any settlement or receive any money on behalf
of BHF.
o Pacao also discovered that BHF did not receive the initial payment of
P200,000.00 that he gave to Atty. Limos.
o Pacao sent a demand letter to Atty. Limos to return the P200,000.00, but she
failed and refused to do so.

69 | P a g e
Disbarment Proceedings
o Pacao filed a disbarment case against Atty. Limos before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
o Atty. Limos did not file any responsive pleading and failed to attend the
mandatory conferences and submit her position paper.
o The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence to prove that Atty.
Limos committed fraud and practiced deceit on Pacao.
o The Investigating Commissioner recommended Atty. Limos' disbarment and
ordered her to return the full amount of P200,000.00 to Pacao.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating
Commissioner's report and recommendation.
o The case was then transmitted to the Court for final action.
o Neither party filed a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review.

Court Decision and Rationale

o The Court noted that Atty. Limos had previously been suspended twice for three
months each for gross negligence, dereliction of duty, deceitful conduct, and
dishonesty.
o The Court warned her that repetition of the same or similar acts would merit a
more severe penalty.
o The Court found that Atty. Limos received P200,000.00 from Pacao for a
settlement with BHF, even though she was no longer BHF's counsel and was not
authorized to negotiate or receive any money on their behalf.
o Atty. Limos did not turn over the money to BHF or return it to Pacao, despite
due demand.
o Atty. Limos also attempted to get the next installment from Pacao, knowing she
was not authorized to do so.
o The Court found that Atty. Limos' actions demonstrated her propensity to
employ deceit and misrepresentation.
o Her lack of regard for the charges brought against her, as evidenced by her
failure to answer the complaint and participate in the proceedings, further
aggravated her offense.
o Despite her prior suspensions, Atty. Limos continued to demonstrate her
unfitness to remain in the legal profession.
o The Court imposed the penalty of disbarment on Atty. Limos, considering the
serious nature of her offense and her prior misconduct.
o The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege and that lawyers are
bound to uphold the laws and the integrity of the legal profession.
o Atty. Limos' repeated transgressions and lack of remorse warranted the ultimate
penalty of disbarment.

Disbarment and Circulation of Decision

o The Court ordered Atty. Limos' name to be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator
were directed to circulate copies of the decision to all courts in the country.
o The decision was immediately executory.

70 | P a g e
 Pacao v. Atty. Sinamar Limos, AC No. 11246, June 14, 2016
Case Digest (A.C. No. 11246)

Facts:
o Case: Pacao v. Limos, A.C. No. 11246
o Date: Decided on June 14, 2016
o Complainant: Arnold Pacao
o Respondent: Atty. Sinamar Limos
o Incident: In March 2008, Mariadel Pacao, the complainant's wife and former
vault custodian of BHF Pawnshop (BHF), was charged with qualified theft by
BHF.
o Role of Respondent: Atty. Limos appeared as counsel for BHF during the
preliminary investigation.
o Settlement Negotiation: Complainant negotiated with BHF through Atty. Limos,
who claimed to be authorized by BHF.
o Agreement: Complainant agreed to pay P200,000.00 to Atty. Limos for a signed
affidavit of desistance, a compromise agreement, and a joint motion to approve
the compromise agreement.
o Payment: On October 29, 2009, the complainant handed over P200,000.00 to
Atty. Limos, who acknowledged receipt.
o Breach: Atty. Limos failed to fulfill her part of the agreement and attempted to
collect further installments.
o Discovery: In June 2010, the complainant learned from BHF's representative,
Camille Bonifacio, that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not
authorized to negotiate or receive money on BHF's behalf.
o Demand: Despite a demand letter, Atty. Limos refused to return the
P200,000.00.
o Disbarment Case: Filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) -
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
o Non-Compliance: Atty. Limos did not respond to the complaint, attend
mandatory conferences, or submit a position paper.
o Recommendation: On May 5, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended her disbarment.
o IBP Board of Governors: Adopted the recommendation on April 19, 2015.
o Supreme Court: Case transmitted for final action on March 8, 2016.

Issue:
o Core Question: Whether the disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis
to disbar Atty. Sinamar Limos from the practice of law?

Ruling:
o Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Sinamar Limos should be
disbarred and her name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.
o Previous Misconduct: Atty. Limos had been suspended twice for similar
misconduct.
o Villaflores v. Atty. Limos: Found guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of
duty for failing to perform obligations after receiving attorney's fees.
o Wilkie v. Atty. Limos: Held liable for deceitful conduct by obtaining a loan from
a client and issuing postdated checks without sufficient funds.
o Repeated Misconduct: Despite warnings, Atty. Limos repeated her misconduct.
o Current Case: Received P200,000.00 from the complainant under false
pretenses, knowing she was no longer authorized to act on behalf of BHF.
o Deception: Did not turn over the money to BHF nor return it to the complainant,
demonstrating intent to deceive.
o Disregard for Legal Process: Failed to respond to the complaint, attend
mandatory conferences, or submit a position paper.
o Ethical Standards: The practice of law is a privilege requiring adherence to
ethical standards.

71 | P a g e
 o Unfit for Legal Profession: Repeated violations and indifference to reform made
her unfit to remain in the legal profession.
o Protection of Legal Profession: Disbarment was warranted to protect the
integrity of the legal profession and maintain public confidence in the legal
system.

Ratio:
o Previous Misconduct: Atty. Limos had been suspended twice for similar
misconduct.
o Villaflores v. Atty. Limos: Found guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of
duty for failing to perform obligations after receiving attorney's fees.
o Wilkie v. Atty. Limos: Held liable for deceitful conduct by obtaining a loan
from a client and issuing postdated checks without sufficient funds.

Repeated Misconduct: Despite warnings, Atty. Limos repeated her misconduct.

o Current Case: Received P200,000.00 from the complainant under false
pretenses, knowing she was no longer authorized to act on behalf of BHF.
o Deception: Did not turn over the money to BHF nor return it to the complainant,
demonstrating intent to deceive.
o Disregard for Legal Process: Failed to respond to the complaint, attend
mandatory conferences, or submit a position paper.
o Ethical Standards: The practice of law is a privilege requiring adherence to
ethical standards.
o Unfit for Legal Profession: Repeated violations and indifference to reform made
her unfit to remain in the legal profession.
o Protection of Legal Profession: Disbarment was warranted to protect the
integrity of the legal profession and maintain public confidence in the legal
system.

Belleza v. Atty. Alan Macasa, AC No. 7815, June 23, 2009

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7815)

Background of the Case

o Atty. Alan S. Macasa was disbarred for unprofessional and unethical conduct.
o The case involved the mishandling of a criminal case of complainant Dolores C.
Belleza's son.
o Belleza sought the legal services of Macasa, who agreed to handle the case for a
fee of P30,000.
o Belleza made partial payments to Macasa through their mutual friend, Joe Chua,
but Macasa did not issue any receipts for the payments.
o Macasa also received P18,000 from Belleza for the purpose of posting a bond to
secure the provisional liberty of her son.
o However, Macasa did not remit the amount to the court as required.
o Belleza demanded the return of the P18,000 from Macasa, but he ignored her.
o Macasa also failed to act on the case of Belleza's son, forcing her to seek the
services of the Public Attorney's Office.

Complaint and Investigation

o Belleza filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Macasa.
o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation.
o Macasa failed to submit his answer to the charges and disregarded the orders of
the IBP.
o The IBP found Macasa guilty of violation of ethical rules, including engaging in
unlawful conduct, failing to account for client funds, and neglecting his client's
case.

72 | P a g e
IBP Recommendation and Supreme Court Decision
o The IBP recommended a six-month suspension for Macasa and ordered him to
return the P30,000 attorney's fees to Belleza.
o The recommendation was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of
the IBP.
o The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the
recommendation regarding the liability of Macasa.

Disrespect for Legal Processes

o The Supreme Court found that Macasa disrespected legal processes by ignoring
orders to answer the charges and file his position paper.
o His conduct showed a lack of concern and disrespect for the proceedings and
the authority of the court.

Neglect of Client's Case

o Macasa's neglect of his client's case was deemed unprofessional and unethical,
as he failed to provide effective and efficient legal assistance.
o This not only prejudiced Belleza's son but also violated his constitutional rights
to counsel and bail.

Failure to Account for Client Funds

o Macasa failed to account for and return the P18,000 entrusted to him by Belleza.
o His failure to render an accounting or return the money constituted a disregard
of ethical rules.
o Macasa's actions showed a lack of integrity and dignity, violating the ethical
standards of the legal profession.

Disbarment and Restitution

o Macasa was disbarred from the practice of law.
o He was ordered to return the P30,000 and P18,000 to Belleza with interest.
o Failure to comply with the order would subject him to criminal prosecution.
o The resolution was to be entered into Macasa's records and furnished to the
courts for their information and guidance.

Belleza v. Atty. Alan Macasa, AC No. 7815, June 23, 2009

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7815)

Facts:
o Disbarment Complaint: Filed by Dolores C. Belleza against Atty. Alan S. Macasa
for unprofessional and unethical conduct.
o Legal Services Engagement: Belleza sought Macasa's legal services for her son,
Francis John Belleza, arrested for violating Republic Act (RA) 9165.
o Agreed Fee: Macasa agreed to handle the case for a fee of P30,000.
o Partial Payments: Belleza made partial payments through their mutual friend,
Joe Chua, but Macasa did not issue any receipts.
o Non-remittance of Bond Money: Belleza gave Macasa P18,000 to post a bond for
her son's provisional liberty, but Macasa did not remit the amount to the court.
o Inaction and Money Retention: Despite repeated demands, Macasa failed to
return the money and did not act on the case, forcing Belleza to seek help from
the Public Attorney's Office.
o Verified Complaint: Belleza filed a verified complaint for disbarment with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Negros Occidental chapter, supported by
Chua's affidavit.
o Macasa's Non-response: The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required
Macasa to answer the complaint, but he repeatedly sought extensions and
ultimately did not respond.

73 | P a g e
 o CBD Findings: The CBD found Macasa guilty of violating several rules of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a six-month suspension
and the return of the P18,000 and P30,000 to Belleza.
o IBP Board of Governors' Modification: The IBP Board of Governors modified the
recommendation, ordering the return of only the P30,000 attorney's fees.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Alan S. Macasa engage in unprofessional and unethical conduct by
neglecting his client's case and misappropriating funds?
o Should Atty. Alan S. Macasa be disbarred for his actions?'

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Alan S. Macasa engaged in unprofessional and unethical conduct.
o Yes, Atty. Alan S. Macasa should be disbarred.

Ratio:
o Affirmation with Modification: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the
CBD and the IBP Board of Governors but modified the recommendation
regarding Macasa's liability.
o Disrespect for Legal Processes: The Court found that Macasa disrespected legal
processes by ignoring multiple directives to answer the complaint and submit
position papers, violating Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o Gross Neglect: Macasa grossly neglected his client's case, violating Canons 17,
18, and 19, and Rules 18.03 and 19.01, by failing to provide effective legal
assistance and abandoning his client's cause.
o Funds Misappropriation: He also failed to return the P18,000 intended for the
bond and the P30,000 attorney's fees, violating Rules 16.01 and 16.02.
o Lack of Moral Principles: The Court emphasized that Macasa's actions showed a
lack of moral principles and were unbecoming of a lawyer, thus warranting
disbarment.
o Order for Restitution: The Court ordered Macasa to return the amounts of
P30,000 and P18,000 with interest and submit proof of payment, warning that
failure to comply would result in criminal prosecution.

Freeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, AC No. 6246, November 15, 2011

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6246)

Parties Involved and Allegations

o Marites E. Freeman, the widow of a British national, filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes.
o Freeman accused Reyes of gross dishonesty for obtaining money from her
without providing proper legal services and misappropriating the proceeds of
her deceased husband's insurance policies.
o Freeman sought the recovery of the amounts she had given to Reyes and the
insurance proceeds, as well as payment of moral and exemplary damages.

Freeman's Allegations
o Freeman engaged Reyes' services to help her secure visas and claim the death
benefits and insurance claims due to her.
o Reyes demanded that Freeman personally go to London to facilitate the
processing of the claims and bear all expenses for the trip.
o Freeman gave Reyes a total of P167,000.00 for legal fees, expenses, and travel
costs.
o Despite repeated follow-ups, Freeman did not receive any assistance from
Reyes.

74 | P a g e
 o Freeman received a picture of her husband's burial from a friend of the
deceased.
o Freeman later discovered that Reyes had gone to London alone without
informing her.
o Reyes used forged documents, including a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) with
Freeman's forged signature, to communicate with insurance companies in
London.

Reyes' Defense
o Reyes claimed that Freeman sought her legal advice regarding the inheritance of
her deceased husband and agreed to pay certain amounts for legal fees and
expenses.
o Reyes made preliminary communications with the insurance companies based
on the SPA she received from Freeman.
o Freeman agreed to pay for Reyes' plane ticket and hotel accommodation in
London.
o Reyes denied any knowledge of forged documents and alleged that Freeman had
obtained the case folder from her office secretary without returning it.

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Findings

o After a thorough investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline found Reyes guilty of gross dishonesty.
o The Commission recommended Reyes' suspension from the practice of law and
the return of the insurance proceeds to Freeman.

IBP Board of Governors' Decision

o The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation and ordered Reyes'
disbarment.

Supreme Court's Decision

o The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP and disbarred Reyes.
o The Court emphasized that lawyers have a fiduciary duty to their clients and
must act with utmost good faith, loyalty, and disinterestedness.
o Reyes' actions, including misappropriating the insurance proceeds and using
deceitful means to obtain money from Freeman, violated professional ethics and
betrayed the trust of her client.
o The Court ordered Reyes to return the insurance proceeds to Freeman and
stricken her name off the Roll of Attorneys.

Freeman v. Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, AC No. 6246, November 15, 2011

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6246)

Facts:
o Complainant: Marites E. Freeman
o Respondent: Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes
o Context: Freeman sought disbarment of Reyes for gross dishonesty and
misappropriation of funds.
Timeline:
Death of Husband: Robert Keith Freeman, a British national, died in London on
October 18, 1998.
Complaint Filed: May 10, 2000.
o Engagement: Freeman hired Reyes to secure visas for her and her son to attend
the wake and funeral, and to claim death benefits and insurance proceeds.
o Payments: Freeman paid Reyes a total of P167,000.00 for legal services, travel
expenses, and purported bribes.

75 | P a g e
 o Misconduct: Reyes failed to secure the visas and misappropriated the insurance
proceeds.
o Forged Documents: Reyes used forged documents, including a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA), to communicate with insurance companies and had the
proceeds remitted to her personal account.
o Discovery and Action: Freeman discovered the misappropriation and filed a
complaint.
o Recommendation and Decision: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
recommended Reyes' disbarment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Issue:
o Gross Dishonesty and Misappropriation: Did Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes commit
these acts?
o Disbarment: Should Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes be disbarred for her actions?

Ruling:
o Yes: Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes committed gross dishonesty and misappropriation
of funds.
o Yes: Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes should be disbarred.

Ratio:
o Trust Betrayed: Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes betrayed Marites E. Freeman's trust by
being dishonest and appropriating the insurance proceeds.
o Failure to Secure Visas: Despite receiving P167,000.00, Reyes failed to fulfill her
obligation to secure visas.
o Forgery and Misappropriation: Reyes used forged documents to have the
insurance funds remitted to her personal account.
o Canon 16 Violation: Reyes violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires lawyers to hold in trust all client moneys and
properties.
o Presumption of Appropriation: A lawyer's failure to return funds or property
held on behalf of a client presumes appropriation for personal use.
o Reprehensible Conduct: Reyes' repeated deceitful actions and misappropriation
warranted disbarment.
o Court Order: The Supreme Court ordered Reyes to turn over the insurance
proceeds to Freeman and struck her name off the Roll of Attorneys.

Enriquez v. Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, AC No. 5686, June 16, 2015

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5686)

Background of the Case

o Teodulo F. Enriquez filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edilberto B.
Lavadia, Jr. for gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of his
duties as a lawyer.
o Enriquez had engaged the services of Atty. Lavadia's law office to defend him in
a complaint for forcible entry.
o Atty. Lavadia repeatedly failed to file necessary pleadings and disregarded court
orders, causing damage and prejudice to Enriquez.

Failure to File Necessary Pleadings and Disregard for Court Orders

o Atty. Lavadia's failure to file the position paper resulted in the defendants being
declared in default by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).
o He filed a notice of appeal, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the
appeal due to his failure to file the appeal memorandum within the prescribed
period.

76 | P a g e
 o Despite being granted extensions of time, Atty. Lavadia still failed to comply
with the court's orders.

Disbarment Complaint and Failure to Comply with Court Orders

o Enriquez filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Lavadia in 2002, alleging
gross negligence and inefficiency.
o Atty. Lavadia claimed that he did not receive a copy of the complaint, but the
Supreme Court ordered Enriquez to furnish him a copy.
o Despite several extensions, Atty. Lavadia continuously failed to comply with the
court's orders, resulting in fines and a show cause order.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation for Disbarment

o The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation and
recommended that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred.
o The IBP found that he neglected his duties as counsel and displayed a willful
and cavalier attitude by defying the court's resolutions.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, and Atty. Lavadia's
motion for reconsideration was denied.

Supreme Court's Agreement with the IBP's Findings

o After careful review, the Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings and held
Atty. Lavadia administratively liable.
o The court emphasized the privilege and attached duties and obligations of being
a lawyer, and the expectation to meet the profession's standards.
o Atty. Lavadia's repeated failure to file necessary pleadings and willful disregard
for court orders violated the rules and canons of the legal profession.

Violations and Imposition of Disbarment Penalty

o The court found Atty. Lavadia liable for violating Rule 12.03 and Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o He neglected his client's legal matter and failed to submit pleadings despite
obtaining extensions of time.
o His actions showed disrespect for the judicial institution and the court's lawful
orders, violating Canon 11.
o Considering the gravity of his actions and propensity for non-compliance, the
court imposed the penalty of disbarment.
o The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal
profession and protecting clients from negligent and inefficient lawyers.
o Atty. Lavadia's name was ordered to be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Enriquez v. Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, AC No. 5686, June 16, 2015

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5686)
Facts:
o The case "Enriquez v. Lavadia, Jr." concerns a disbarment complaint by Teodulo
F. Enriquez against Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. for gross negligence and
inefficiency.
o The complaint was filed on January 16, 2002, with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC).
o The issue originated from a forcible entry complaint by Ernesto Ouano, Sr.
against Enriquez, filed on January 7, 1997, before the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Talibon, Bohol.
o Enriquez hired the law firm of Attys. Joselito M. Alo, R. L. C. Agapay, and
Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr., with Atty. Lavadia assigned to handle the case.

77 | P a g e
 o On March 18, 2000, Atty. Lavadia agreed in open court to submit position
papers and affidavits within 30 days from the receipt of the pre-trial order but
failed to do so.
o Due to his failure, the defendants were declared in default, and the MCTC ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs.
o Atty. Lavadia filed a notice of appeal with sufficient bond, but the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol dismissed the appeal on April 26, 2001, for failing
to file the appeal memorandum after more than 71 days, despite multiple
extensions.
o Enriquez claimed that Atty. Lavadia's failure to file the necessary pleadings
caused significant damage and prejudice, amounting to gross negligence and
inefficiency.
o The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, which recommended disbarment.
o The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, and the Supreme
Court agreed with their findings.

Issue:
o Did Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. commit gross negligence and inefficiency in
the performance of his duties as a lawyer?
o Should Atty. Lavadia be disbarred for his actions?

Ruling:
o Yes, Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. committed gross negligence and inefficiency
in the performance of his duties as a lawyer.
o Yes, Atty. Lavadia should be disbarred for his actions.

Ratio:
o The Supreme Court found Atty. Lavadia administratively liable for gross
negligence and inefficiency.
o The Court stressed that being a lawyer is a privilege with duties and obligations,
including adherence to the lawyer's oath, professional rules, and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
o Atty. Lavadia's consistent failure to file necessary pleadings, despite multiple
extensions, violated Rule 12.03 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from letting
the period lapse without submitting the required documents or offering an
explanation.
o His actions caused significant prejudice to his client, Enriquez, and showed a
willful, defiant, and cavalier attitude towards court orders.
o The Court noted that Atty. Lavadia's behavior demonstrated a lack of respect for
the judicial process, violating Canon 11 of the CPR, which mandates due respect
for the court and its officers.
o Given the severity of his actions and his disrespectful attitude towards the
Court, the Supreme Court deemed disbarment necessary to prevent further
harm to other clients and to maintain the legal profession's integrity.

78 | P a g e