ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG VS. ATTY. ROGELIO addresses, declared him to be in default.

On
JUAN A. CELERA, A.C. NO. 5581, JANUARY 14, January 3, 2011, the IBP-CBD recommended his
2014 suspension for two (2) years from practicing law.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent
(1) Whether respondent’s act of contracting a
and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a
second marriage, while the first was still
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral
respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent
conduct warranting disciplinary sanctions.
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma.
(2) Whether respondent’s repeated failure to file
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified
his comment and his persistent non-
xerox copy of the certificate of marriage Bansig
compliance with the Court’s orders amount
stressed that the marriage between respondent and
to willful disobedience of lawful orders.
Bunagan was still valid and in full legal existence
when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, Ruling:
and that the first marriage had never been annulled
or rendered void by any lawful authority. (1) YES, Respondent exhibited a deplorable
lack of that degree of morality required of
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting him as a member of the Bar. He made a
marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still mockery of marriage, a sacred institution
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct demanding respect and dignity. His act of
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders contracting a second marriage while his first
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for
Respondent however claimed ignorance of the disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of
precise nature of the administrative complaint the Revised Rules of Court.
except for Bansig's motions, alleging that he did not (2) YES, The Court has been very tolerant in
receive the copies of the complaint until he made dealing with respondent’s nonchalant
inquiries. He contended that Bansig’s actions were attitude towards this case; accommodating
designed to mislead him and were motivated by respondent’s endless requests,
personal disputes, including a claimed outstanding manifestations and prayers to be given a
obligation of P2,000,000.00 and sibling rivalry. copy of the complaint. Respondent’s
Despite several opportunities and repeated court cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the
orders (with copies of orders and complaints sent to orders of the Supreme Court constitutes
various addresses), respondent persistently failed utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
to file his comment or appear at mandatory Respondent’s conduct indicates a high
conferences and hearings. Multiple efforts by the degree of irresponsibility. Respondent’s
Court to furnish him with the complaint were met by obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s
excuses and eventual non-compliance, including orders “not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in
issues related to changes in his mailing address. his character; it also underscores his
disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders which
Due to respondent’s repeated failure to file his is only too deserving of reproof.”
required comment, the Court imposed a fine of Considering respondent’s propensity to disregard
P1,000.00 (with imprisonment as an alternative not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
penalty) and ordered compliance by filing the orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting
required comment. Later, when non-compliance in moral character, honesty, probity and good
persisted, the Court dispensed with the filing of the demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an
comment, ordered the arrest of Atty. Celera, and officer of the court.
directed the NBI to enforce its arrest order and
monitor compliance. The Integrated Bar of the HELD: DISBARRED.
Philippines, after attempts to contact respondent
and verifying his whereabouts with conflicting
 JOSEFINA ROYONG VS. ATTY. ARISTON woman. He is recommended to be disbarred or
OBLENA, A.C. NO. 376, APRIL 30, 1963 suspended for one year.

FACTS: ISSUE:

Complainant Josefina Royong charge the (1) Whether the respondent’s illicit sexual
respondent Ariston Oblena, a member of the bar relations with the complainant, which
and bench, with rape. commenced before her eighteenth birthday
but continued after she reached legal age,
Based from the report of the Solicitor General, the constituted sufficient grounds for
complainant was raped after lunch when her disbarment.
mother left her alone. The respondent entered, (2) Whether the respondent's ongoing
when behind her, covered her mouth with one hand adulterous relationship and cohabitation
and dragged her to the bedroom. She tried to with Briccia Angeles, a married woman,
resist, but resulted to her receiving hard blows on from the time of his application for
the thigh with his fist and threats to kill her and her admission to the bar until the present,
family. After the sexual intercourse, he threatened render him unfit to remain a member of the
her not to tell her foster father, otherwise, he would Philippine Bar due to a lack of good moral
kill her and all the members of her family. This character
resulted to her pregnancy. Eventually, she gave
birth to the child. RULING:

Oblena denied the rape accusation in his response (1) YES, His act becomes more despicable
but admitted to engaging in a consensual illicit considering that the complainant was the
relationship with Royong from January 1957 to niece of his common-law wife and that he
December 1958. He claimed their first sexual enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who
intercourse occurred after Royong turned eighteen. looked up to him as her uncle. As the
He also revealed intentions to marry her once it Solicitor General observed: "He also took
was legally possible, and disclosed that his advantage of his moral influence over her.
relationship with Josefin was known to her foster Furthermore, the blunt admission of his illicit
parents after the affair was discovered. relations with the complainant reveals the
respondent to be a person who would suffer
Based from the findings, The Solicitor general no moral compunction for his acts if the
concluded that there was carnal knowledge of the same could be done without fear of criminal
complainant and it was consensual. liability. He has, by these acts, proven
In view of his findings, even if respondent did not himself to be devoid of the moral integrity
commit the alleged rape, but he was still guilty of expected of a member of the bar.
other misconduct. (2) YES, One's own approximation of himself is
not a gauge to his moral character. Moral
After the hearing, the investigators submitted the character is not a subjective term, but one
report with the finding that: which corresponds to objective reality. Moral
character is what a person really is, and not
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to take
what he or other people think he is.
advantage by having illicit relationship with the
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a
complainant, committing immoral acts which
good moral character at the time he applied
rendered him free from criminal liability;
for admission to the bar. He lived an
Respondent committed gross immorality by adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the
continuously cohabitating with a married woman fact that people who knew him seemed to
even after he became a lawyer; have acquiesced to his status, did not
render him a person of good moral
That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character. It is of no moment that his
character in his petition to take the bar examination, immoral state was discovered then or now
due to the immorality of cohabitating with his as he is clearly not fit to remain a member
common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, a married of the bar.
HELD: DISBARRED.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether Atty. Flores’ repeated failure to
HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN VS.
comply with court orders to furnish proof of
ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES, A.C. NO. 8954,
his MCLE compliance constitutes a violation
NOVEMBER 13, 2013
warranting disciplinary sanctions.
FACTS: (2) Whether the employment of intemperate and
offensive language in his pleadings
A complaint for Damages was filed before the undermines the requisite professional
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal. decorum expected of a member of the bar.
Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for (3) Whether the recommended penalty of a one-
the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without year suspension is appropriate given the
proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was expunged nature and extent of the violations, and
from the records without prejudice to the filing of balanced against factors such as his long-
another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required standing career and the possibility of a first
MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was offense.
reset several times for failure of respondent to
RULING:
appear and submit his Pre-Trial Brief indicating
thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo (1)YES, There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed
gave respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof
Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the
considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later several opportunities given him. “Court orders
filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number are to be respected not because the judges
which was merely superimposed without indicating who issue them should be respected, but
the date and place of compliance. During the because of the respect and consideration that
preliminary conference, respondent manifested that should be extended to the judicial branch of
he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the Government. This is absolutely essential
the following day. if our Government is to be a government of
laws and not of men. Respect must be had
On January 12, 2011, Judge Manahan issued an not because of the incumbents to the
Order voluntarily inhibiting herself from hearing Civil positions, but because of the authority that
Case No. 1863. The Order criticized Atty. Flores for vests in them. Disrespect to judicial
his alleged unethical behavior, indicating that his incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the
acts—characterized by dishonesty, discourtesy, and Government to which they belong, as well as
intemperate language—amounted to grave to the State which has instituted the judicial
misconduct and possible malpractice, warranting system.”
disciplinary action under Rules 139 (a & b) of the (2)YES, Atty. Flores also employed intemperate
Code of Professional Responsibility. language in his pleadings. As an officer of the
court, Atty. Flores is expected to be
The case was referred to the Executive Judge of circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03,
the Regional Trial Court of Rizal Josephine Zarate Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Fernandez for investigation, report, and Responsibility enjoins all attorneys to abstain
recommendation. from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts. Atty.
The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have Flores failed in this respect.
failed to give due respect to the court by failing to (3)NO, the recommended penalty too harsh and
obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his not commensurate with the infractions
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal committed by the respondent. It appears that
Education (MCLE) requirement, and for using this is the first infraction committed by
intemperate language in his pleadings. The respondent. Also, we are not prepared to
Investigating Judge recommended that Atty. Flores impose on the respondent the penalty of one-
be suspended from the practice of law for one year. year suspension for humanitarian reasons.
HELD: 5,000 FINE AND STERN WARNING
RULING:
MERCULLO VS. RAMON, A.C. NO. 11078, JULY
19, 2016 YES, The court declared respondent guilty of
dishonesty and deceit.
FACTS:
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations
Complainants Verlita Mercullo and Raymond and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the oath
Vedano were authorized by their mother, Carmelita may be punished with either disbarment, or
Verdano, to inquire from the National Home suspension from the practice of law, or other
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) about the commensurate disciplinary action.
status of her unpaid obligations secured by a
mortgage covering their residential property in The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's
Novaliches, Caloocan City. They learned that their Oath by receiving money from the complainants
mother's arrear had amounted to P350,000. after having made them believe that she could
Respondent Atty. Ramon advised them about their assist them in ensuring the redemption in their
right to redeem the property within one year from mother's behalf. She was convincing about her
foreclosure. Complainants handed respondent ability to work on the redemption because she had
P350,000 who in turn issued two acknowledgment worked in the NHFMC. She did not inform them
receipts for the redemption price and for litigation soon enough, however, that she had meanwhile
expenses. She even showed them her NHMFC ceased to be connected with the agency. It was her
identification card. duty to have so informed them. She further misled
them about her ability to realize the redemption by
When complainants went to the NHMFC to follow falsely informing them about having started the
up on the redemption, they discovered that Atty. redemption process. She concealed from them the
Ramon is no longer connected to them. real story that she had not even initiated the
Nevertheless, respondent informed them that the redemption proceedings that she had assured them
redemption is on process and that the certificate of she would do. Everything she did was dishonest
redemption will be issued in two or three weeks' and deceitful in order to have them part with the
time. Complainants went to see the Clerk of Court substantial sum of P350,000.00. She took
of the RTC in Caloocan City to inquire on the status advantage of the complainants who had reposed
of the redemption. There they discovered that their full trust and confidence in her ability to
respondent had not deposited the redemption price perform the task by virtue of her being a lawyer.
and had not filed the intent of redeeming the Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably
property. eroded public trust in the Legal Profession.

They then demanded the return of the money to HELD: SUSPENDED FOR 5 YEARS, ORDERED
which respondent promised to deposit it in Verlita's THE RETURN OF 350,000 WITH INTEREST
account, but failed to do so. Complainants brought
their disbarment complaint in the Integrated Bar of NOTE:
the Philippines (IBP). The IBP required respondent Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the
to file her and answer and to attend the mandatory unlawful act or omission of the respondent within
conference set. Respondent failed to do so.In IBP the coverage of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, he Professional Responsibility.20 The Code exacted
found respondent to have violated Rule 1.01 of the from her not only a firm respect for the law and
Code of Professional Responsibility and legal processes but also the utmost degree of
recommended her suspension for two years and to fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the
return the P350, 000. This was adopted by IBP moneys entrusted by them pursuant to their
Board of Governors. fiduciary relationship.
ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Ramon acts warrant disbarment?

 arguing that his conduct violated professional
standards and the confidentiality rule governing
disbarment proceedings. The AFP Public Affairs
Office, led by Lt. Col. Harold Cabunoc, issued
ROQUE VS. AFP, FEBRUARY 15, 2017, G.R. NO. press statements publicly announcing that a
214986 verified disbarment complaint had been filed before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
FACTS: Atty. Roque for his “unlawful conduct” as an
attorney. The publicity surrounding the incident was
Atty. Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. filed a Petition to extensive, with numerous media outlets covering
Cite for Indirect Contempt against high-ranking the story and quoting Atty. Roque’s responses on
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Twitter, scrutinizing his professional conduct in light
(AFP), including Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang, Brig. of the controversy. Atty. Roque claimed that these
Gen. Arthur Ang, and Lt. Col. Harold Cabunoc. The public statements, including the disclosure of the
petition claims that the officers violated Section 18 disbarment complaint, damaged his personal and
of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, which professional reputation and violated the
mandates the confidentiality of disbarment confidentiality requirements set forth by the Rules
proceedings. The controversy at the center of the of Court.
petition arises from the highly publicized murder of
Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude, a 26-year-old Filipino ISSUE:
allegedly killed on October 11, 2014, by US Marine
Private First Class Joseph Scott Pemberton. Whether the public pronouncements, including
press statements and publicly disseminated
Following the murder, difficulties arose in obtaining information regarding the filing of a disbarment
Pemberton’s latent fingerprints and oral swabs due complaint against petitioner, constitute a violation of
to his initial confinement aboard a ship. The issue Section 18, Rule 139-B (confidentiality) of the Rules
of custody over Pemberton sparked public debate, of Court.
with Philippine authorities maintaining that he was
under US custody until formal charges were filed. RULING:
However, he was later transferred to a detention
facility within Camp Aguinaldo. On October 22, NO, The Court agrees with respondents, that they
2014, Atty. Roque, representing the Laude family should not be faulted for releasing a subsequent
and German national Marc Sueselbeck, went to press statement regarding the disbarment
Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo to demand complaint they filed against petitioner. The
Pemberton’s personal appearance. Security statements were official statements made in the
personnel observed a BMW and later a silver performance of respondents’ official functions to
Toyota Innova, marked with “MEDIA” on its address a matter of public concern. It was the
windshield, entering the premises despite prior publication of an institutional action in response to a
instructions forbidding such entries. Military serious breach of security.58 Respondents, in the
personnel, including Cpl. Walter Francisco and exercise of their public functions, should not be
TSG Mariano C. Pamittan, testified that Atty. Roque punished for responding publicly to such public
and his associates forcefully entered the Mutual actions.
Defense Board–Security Engagement Board
compound, breaching restricted areas and causing NOTE:
public disorder. The altercation involved heated The confidentiality in disciplinary actions for lawyers
exchanges, physical confrontations with security is not absolute. It is not to be applied under any
staff, and the use of profanities by Atty. Roque, as circumstance, to all disclosures of any nature. The
documented by witnesses. confidentiality rule requires only that “proceedings
against attorneys” be kept private and confidential.
In response to the breach of security at Camp It is the proceedings against attorneys that must be
Aguinaldo, the AFP leadership considered initiating kept private and confidential. This would
disbarment proceedings against Atty. Roque,
necessarily prohibit the distribution of actual Whether respondent should be administratively
disbarment complaints to the press. held liable for practicing law while he was
suspended

HELD: PETITION WAS DENIED RULING:

YES, In this case, the OBC correctly pointed out

PARAS VS. PARAS, A.C. NO. 5333, MARCH 13, that respondent's suspension period became
2017 effective on May 23, 2001 and lasted for one (1)
year, or until May 22, 2002. Therafter, respondent
FACTS: filed a motion for the lifting of his suspension.
However, soon after this filing and without waiting
In October 2000, the Court suspended respondent for a Court order approving the same, respondent
from the practice of law for six months for falsifying admitted to accepting new clients and cases, and
his wife’s signature in bank documents and for one even working on an amicable settlement for his
year for immorality and family abandonment, with client with the Department of Agrarian Reform.
the penalties served concurrently. Respondent’s Indubitably, respondent engaged in the practice of
motion for reconsideration was denied in January law without waiting for the Court order lifting the
2001. Despite the suspension, complainant filed suspension order against him, and thus, he must
several motions in 2001 accusing respondent and be held administratively liable therefor.
his associate, Atty. Richard Enojo, of continuing
legal practice in violation of the suspension. HELD: SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS
Respondent also filed a Motion to Lift Suspension
in 2002, admitting to accepting new clients despite NOTE: However, considering that respondent has
the pending motion. already been previously disbarred, this penalty can
no longer be imposed.
In March 2003, complainant filed a motion seeking
clarification on whether respondent could resume
practicing law before the suspension was officially
lifted by the Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) recommended in June 2004 that respondent
could not resume practice until an official order
lifting the suspension was issued by the Court. The
Court issued a resolution in August 2004 to refer
the matter to the IBP for a report, but no action was
taken until 2013, when the IBP confirmed
respondent’s suspension, pending a resolution of
his motion for reconsideration.

In 2012, the IBP Investigating Commissioner

revisited the 1995 complaint and recommended a
two-year suspension for respondent. The IBP
Board modified this to a one-year suspension in
2013. Respondent contested the recommendation,
arguing that the matter had already been settled in
2000, and that further suspension would constitute
double jeopardy. His motion for reconsideration
was denied in June 2015.

ISSUE:
 ISSUE:
Whether the court should grant judicial clemency to
Atty. Ramon and reinstate him as a member of the
bar
RULING:
NO, Torres failed to comply with the guidelines for
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR the grant of judicial clemency. The testimonials and
REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO TORRES AS A endorsements submitted by Torres do not prove
MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, A.C. NO. whatsoever that he had already successfully
5161, JULY 11, 2017 reformed himself subsequent to his disbarment.
Neither do they exhibit remorse towards the actions
which caused his delisting from the Roll of
FACTS:
Attorneys, i.e., the fraudulent acts he committed
Respondent Rolando S. Torres was disbarred against his sister-in-law. In this regard, it is
following charges brought by his sister-in-law, Isidra noteworthy to point out that since the promulgation
Ting-Dumali, alleging misconduct related to forgery, of the Court's August 25, 2015 Resolution, there
presenting false testimony, and engaging in was still no showing that Torres had reconciled or
fraudulent activities to profit from family properties. even attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law so
Specifically, Torres was accused of being involved as to show remorse for his previous faults.
in fraudulent Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement,
Moreover, Torres also failed to present any
where he allegedly participated in and consented to
evidence to demonstrate his potential for public
forgeries and false representations concerning
service or that he - now being 70 years of age- still
estate properties in Cavite. On April 14, 2004, the
has productive years ahead of him that can be put
Supreme Court found Torres guilty of gross
to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
misconduct, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and
himself.
breaches of the Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, resulting in his HELD: PETITION WAS DENIED
disbarment. Torres subsequently filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which was denied on June 29,
2004. He then filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Second Motion for Reconsideration, which was also
denied on November 9, 2004. Torres made further
attempts to regain his license, including an Ex-
Parte Motion to Lift Disbarment, letters addressed
to Supreme Court Justices, and various
submissions seeking reinstatement, but all were
either expunged or denied by the Court. Finally, on
June 23, 2015, more than a decade after his
disbarment, Torres filed a Petition for
Reinstatement, seeking judicial clemency to return
to practice as a lawyer, which was denied.
Notwithstanding these previous denials and
expungements, Torres filed the instant petition
again seeking judicial clemency. In his petition, he
rehashed previous testimonials and endorsements,
including one from the incumbent Secretary of
Justice affirming his moral character. However,
these did not substantiate that he had reformed or
shown remorse for his misconduct.