Paas vs.

Almarvez
FACTS: A judge allowed her husband who is a practicing lawyer, to use the address of her
court in the latters pleadings before other courts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the spouses guilty of any misbehavior.
HELD: Yes. The spouses violated Canon ! of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility which
states that $a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.%
&y allowing her husband to use the address of her court in pleadings before other courts,
'udge "aas indeed allowed him to ride on her prestige for purpose of advancing his private
interest, in violation of the Code of 'udicial Conduct and the #ules of Court.
Martelino vs. Alejandro
FACTS: (artelino was held guilty by the Court (artial Alejandro for violating the articles of
war thru allegedly shooting (uslim recruits in Corregidor resulting to a massacre. )e filed a
peremptory challenge against the Court (artial contending that the case had received such an
amount of publicity in the press and other news media as to imperil his right to a fair trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not the rights of the accused to a fair trial was prejudiced by the publicity
of the massacre.
HELD: *o. Where the publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the
responsibility of the +overnment for what was claimed to be a ,massacre, of (uslim trainees,
there is no trial by publicity which would prejudice the right of the accused to a fair and
impartial hearing. -f there was a ,trial by newspaper, at all, it was not of the petitioners but of
the +overnment.
Cruz vs. Salva
FACTS: A number of accused were convicted to death by the trial court for the murder of
(anuel (onroy which said case became pending appeal thru automatic review by the
.upreme Court due to the penalty imposed. The "hilippine Constabulary and investigators of
(alaca/ang conducted an investigation thru the order of "resident (agsaysay in which they
found information pointing to persons other than those convicted.
The convicted then wrote to 0iscal .alva re1uesting that a reinvestigation be conducted
considering the information obtained by those who had investigated the case at the instance of
(alaca/ang. Thru the reinvestigation conducted by 0iscal .alva, Cru2 was subpoenaed. -n the
course of the reinvestigation, 0iscal .alva also involved the media therein. Cru2 contended
that inasmuch as the principal case in connection to the 3illing of (anuel (onroy is pending
appeal, no court, much less 0iscal .alva, has any right or authority to conduct a reinvestigation
of the case. The fiscal averred that reinvestigation is necessary for the duty and role of
prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure the conviction of the guilty but also to
protect the innocent.
ISSUE: Whether or not 0iscal .alva is correct in reinvestigating the cause of a pending
appeal.
HELD: The .upreme Court held that the "rovincial 0iscal had established a justification for
his reinvestigation on the case, however, said 0iscal committed a grievous error and poor
judgement when conducted the reinvestigation with much fanfare, publicity and
sensationalism. -n this case, 0iscal .alva clearly violated #ule !.45 of the Code of
"rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a lawyer shall not ma3e public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against the party.%
e: Sus!ension o" Att#. $a%a&u#o
FACTS: Atty. &agabuyo was a counsel for the prosecution in a criminal case where they
charged the accused of murder, however, the #TC judge declared that the evidences are only
sufficient to prove the crime of homicide, thus, the accused filed a (otion to 0i6 the Amount
of &ail &ond which would not be available to the accused if the crime is murder. The #TC
judge inhibited himself to try the case due to the harsh insinuation of Atty. &agabuyo that he
$lac3s the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate.% The case was then transferred to the .ala
of 'udge Tan who approved the accuseds (otion to 0i6 the Amount of &ail &ond. Atty.
&agabuyo, in turn, caused the publication of an article in (indanao +old .tar 7aily regarding
the 8rder granting bail to the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. &agabuyos action of causing the publication of an article in a
newspaper regarding the pending case is proper.
HELD: *o. #espondent, through his actions, clearly violated #ule !.45 of the Code of
"rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a lawyer shall not ma3e public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.% Thus,
he was suspended.
$umanla% vs. $umanla%
FACTS: The Court found respondent Atty. 9steban &umanlag guilty of grossly immoral
conduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.
#espondent filed several motions but all were denied. #espondent then sought an action from
the office of the "resident to promulgate a decree that would set aside the order of the
.upreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of respondent &umanlag in sending a petition to the office of
the "resident deserves disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. #espondent, thru his action, clearly violated #ule !.4! of the Code of
"rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a lawyer shall not broo3 or invite interference
by another branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.%
Thus, he was reprimanded, with considerations on his gross ignorance of the Constitution in
having as3ed the "resident to set aside by decree the Courts decision which constitutes a
violation on the doctrine of separation of powers.
Tan vs. La!a'
FACTS: Tan employed Atty. :apa3s legal services to see3 reconsideration on her appeal
before the CA. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The said counsel then promised to
file a petition for review before the .upreme Court but despite the grant of e6tension of time
to file the petition, :apa3 failed to do so. -t seemed that respondent was contending that his
failure to file the petition on time was due to the failure of his client to pay the lawyers fee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. :apa3s contention is tenable.
HELD: *o. -t is a6iomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for
every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to ta3e up the cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. The failure of a client to pay the balance of the amount he
promised is not sufficient to justify the lawyers failure to comply with his professional
obligation. -n his actuations, Atty. :apa3 has violated #ule ;.4 of the Code of "rofessional
#esponsibility which states that $a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latters race, se6, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding
the guilt of said person.% Thus, he was reprimanded.
Sarenas vs. ()am!os
FACTS: .arenas was represented by Atty. 8campos in a civil case for recovery of possession
and ownership of a parcel of land in which they received an unfavorable decision. The latter
accepted the employment gratis et amore or $by the grace and love of +od%. At the behest of
the .arenas, Atty. 8campos filed an appeal before the CA. )owever, when they were re1uired
to file appellants brief, the counsel failed to do so even after the lapse of the <4=day e6tension
granted.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. 8campos deserves disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. #ule ;.4; of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility re1uires that a lawyer who
accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same
standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients. )ence, the fact that
respondent accepted to represent complainants gratis et amore does not justify his failure to
file appellants brief. 9very case a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, diligence, s3ill, and
competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Peo!le vs. Ca*ili
FACTS: Atty. >apata was the counsel of Cawili in a criminal case where the latter was
convicted of the crime of rape. Atty. >apata failed to file the appellants brief asserting that it
was due to the fact that his client was in a state of indigence resulting to not being paid and
also in his partly assuming the e6penses entailed in such defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. >apatas action may be justified by the state of indigence of his
client.
HELD: *o. -n such conduct, respondent obviously violated #ule ;.4; of the Code of
"rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person
unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.% -t cannot be denied that his failure to submit the brief within the
reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action. 0or him to blithely assume
that a mere reading of the record would suffice to discharge an obligation not only to his client
but to the Court is to betray a degree of irresponsibility.
amos vs. Dajo#a%+ ,r.
FACTS: Atty. 7ajoyag accepted the complaint for illegal dismissal of #amos for free as a
$3ababayan%. The counsel filed the petition for certiorari out of the reglementary period, thus,
petition was denied. #amos then filed a complaint against him before the .C. Atty. 7ajoyag
had mentioned on his answer that he even filed the appeal at his own e6pense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. 7ajoyags conduct deserves disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. #egardless of the agreement he had with complainant with respect to the
payment of his fees, respondent owed it to complainant to do his utmost to ensure that every
remedy allowed by law is availed of. #ule ;.4; of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility
enjoins every lawyer to devote his full attention, diligence, s3ills, and competence to every
case that he accepts. "ressure and large volume of legal wor3 do not e6cuse respondent for
filing the petition for certiorari out of time. )ence, Atty. 7ajoyag was reprimanded.
Mejia vs. e#es
FACTS: Atty. #eyes was an appointed ban3 attorney of "*& &aguio. 7uring his service as
such, he accepted the case of (ejia against "*& before the C0- of &aguio. (ejia lost the case
but did not appeal it upon the advice of Atty. #eyes. (ejia then filed a disbarment case against
#eyes when he learned that the latter is an attorney of the "*& &aguio.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. #eyes constitutes conflict of interests which warrants
disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. )is actuation is in violation of #ule ?.4 of the Code of "rofessional
#esponsibility which states that $a lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall
ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client
or his own interest, and if so shall forthwith inform the prospective client.% :awyers are
prohibited from representing conflicting interests in a case. The respondent@s act of appearing
and acting as counsel for (ejia in the civil case against the "*&, that had appointed him ban3
attorney and notary public, constitutes malpractice.
Sta. Maria vs. Tuason
FACTS: Atty. Tuason won a collection case for his three clients, one of those is .ta.(aria.
After receiving the amount from the adverse party, the lawyer got "4,444.44 for his
attorneys fees and ",A;B.44 for the alleged e6penses on the litigation. )is clients received
the rest e6cept for .ta. (aria.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of Atty. Tuason deserves a reprimand.
HELD: Yes. The fact that the respondent has placed his private and personal interest over and
above that of his clients constitutes a breach of a lawyer@s oath for in case of conflict of
interests of a lawyer and his client, the lawyer shall give preference to the clients interest. Call
it professional indiscretion or any other name, but the cold fact remains that the act is not
conducive to a healthy growth of the legal profession.
Hadjula vs. Madianda
FACTS: )adjula disclosed her secret in the course of see3ing legal advice from Atty.
(adianda but the latter, after having 3nowledge of the secrets of )adjula, referred the case to
a lawyer=friend. Complainant alleged that the referral was malicious of respondent to have
refused handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. (adianda deserves disciplinary action with her conduct.
HELD: Yes. Atty. (adianda violated #ule ?.45 of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility
which states that $a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged communication in respect
of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.% The purpose of the rule of confidentiality
is actually to protect the client from possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation
with a lawyer. )ence, his acts indeed constitutes a breached his duty of preserving the
confidence of a client.
e%ala vs. Sandi%an&a#an
FACTS: #egala was one of the lawyers who were included as defendants in a case for
recovery of ill=gotten wealth. The inclusion of several lawyers was intended to compel them to
reveal the identity of their clients who are the principal defendants in the aforementioned case.
The said lawyers contend that they are prohibited from revealing the identity of their clients
under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to uphold at all times the
confidentiality of information obtained during such lawyer=client relationship. 8n the other
hand, "C++ claimed that the revelation of the identity of the client is not within the ambit of
the lawyer=client confidentiality privilege because they are evidence of nominee status.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in such a given circumstance, the revelation of the names of the
clients of the lawyers is a privileged.
HELD: Yes. As a matter of public policy, it has been a well=settled rule that a clients identity
should not be shrouded in mystery. 0or this reason, it is understood that there are certain
e6ceptions to privileged communication. )owever, the information relating to the identity of a
client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the clients name itself has an
independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences. )ence, in
the case at bar, the revelation of the identity of the clients is a clear violation of the lawyer=
client confidentiality privilege.
Falame vs. Att#. $a%uio
FACTS: :ydio 0alame engaged the services of Atty. &aguio in a civil case in which they
received a favorable decision. Years later, Atty. &aguio acted as a counsel in another civil case
for the party adverse to his former client involving the same property subject of the first civil
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. &aguio constitutes conflict of interests which deserves
disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. Atty. &aguio has violated #ule ?.4! of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility
which states that $a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e6cept by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.% The rule prohibits a lawyer from
representing a client if that representation will be directly adverse to any of his present or
former clients. The client@s confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere e6piration
of professional employment.
Hilado vs. David
FACTS: )ilado consulted Atty. 0rancisco in a civil case for annulment of sale, however, the
latter refused to represent )ilado for the reason that he is of the opinion that such a case will
not ordinarily prosper. Contrariwise, the adverse party on the said case hired the services of
Atty. 0rancisco. Conse1uently, )ilados counsel filed a motion for dis1ualification, as to the
pending case, against Atty. 0rancisco on the grounds of representing conflicting interest. The
latter asserts that there was no attorney=client relationship established since )ilado did not
formally employ his legal services, thus, there is conflict of interest in such circumstance.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. 0rancisco in accepting the employment of the adverse
party constitutes conflicting interest.
HELD: Yes. To constitute professional employment it is not material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward underta3e the case about which the consultation was made. -t is
sufficient that the attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation to regard the professional
employment established. )ence, the attorney=client relationship was already established when
Atty. 0rancisco advised )ilado regarding the case and thus, the former is precluded from
accepting the employment of the adverse party since it is incumbent that every attorney should
3eep inviolate the clients confidence and avoid the appearance of treachery and double=
dealing.
-om&rado vs. Att#. Hernandez
FACTS: *ombrado filed a disbarment case against Atty. )ernande2 for having appeared as a
counsel of the complainant in a civil case for forcible entry against his former client who
complainant in a criminal case of serious physical injury, being the cause of both cases is the
same parcel of landC and for appearing as a counsel for both the accused and the complaining
witness in another criminal case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. )ernande2 conduct is improper as to warrant disbarment.
HELD: Yes. 9ven if respondent did not use against any of his clients any information or
evidence he ac1uired as their counsel, it cannot be denied that he did become privy to each
clients information. The mere fact of the previous attorney=client relationship should have
precluded the lawyer from appearing as counsel for the other party as #ule ?.4! of the Code
of "rofessional #esponsibility provides that $a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
e6cept by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.%
.onzales vs. Ca&u)ana+ ,r.
FACTS: Atty. Cabucana 'r. was one of the lawyers of Cabucana, Cabucana, 7e +u2man and
Cabucana law office. This law office had represented +on2ales in a civil case for sum of
money in which they received a favourable decision. )owever, the sheriff failed to fully
implement the writ of e6ecution issued for the said case which prompted +on2ales to file a
complaint against said sheriff. *otwithstanding the pendency of +on2ales civil case, where
respondents law firm was still representing +on2ales, Atty. Cabucana 'r. represented the
sheriff in the case filed by +on2ales.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. Cabucana amounts to conflicting interest.
HELD: Yes. -t was their law firm which represented +on2ales in the civil case, thus, the rule
against representing conflicting interests applies. The respondents action was in violation of
#ule ?.4! of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests e6cept by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of facts.% +ranting that there really was no other lawyer to handle the case, still he
should have ascertained as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict
then see3 the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.
(n% vs. .rijaldo
FACTS: 8ng filed a disbarment case against +rijaldo for gross misconduct and deceit.
Alleged was that +rijaldo spent the portion of the amount paid to 8ng by the accused to
amicably settle their civil obligation. -ncluded in her complaint was that +rijaldo offered her
opponent in an earlier case to delay the hearing in e6change for money.
ISSUE: Whether or not +rijaldo e6hibited gross misconduct in his actuations which warrants
disbarment.
HELD: Yes. #espondent, by converting the money of his client to his own personal use
without her consent, was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. *ot only did he
degrade himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he besmirched the fair name of an honorable
profession.
0urthermore, respondent violated #ule ?.4! of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility, to
wit, $a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e6cept by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of facts%, his oath of office and duties as counsel when
he approached his clients opponent and offered to delay the case in e6change for money. )is
offer to delay the case would have frustrated the interests of his client which he had sworn to
protect.
Lim/Santia%o vs. Sa%u)io
FACTS: Atty. .agucio was the former counsel of Tagat -ndustries which was too3 over by
:im=.antiago, the daughter of the late company "resident. -ts employees filed a criminal
complaint against :im=.antiago for withholding payment of salaries without valid cause
wherein .agucio, as a prosecutor, was assigned to investigate the case. :im=.antiago filed a
disbarment case against .agucio for representing conflicting interest.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. .agucio constitutes conflict of interest.
HELD: *o. -t appears that Atty. .agucio did not use confidential information he obtained
during his employment with Tagat -ndustries against them. #espondent only conducted the
preliminary investigation as part of his current duty as a government prosecutor. A lawyers
immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the
lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the
duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former
client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer=client relationship has terminated.
Pormento vs. Pontevedra
FACTS: Atty. "ontevedra was the familys legal counsel of "ormento. They lost a
counterclaim of a parcel of land. When "ormento was to institute an action for the recovery of
the said land, Atty. "ontevedra refused to represent him, thus, he hired a new lawyer and
conse1uently filed a criminal case against the occupants of the said land where these said
occupants were represented by Atty. "ontevedra. "ormento then filed a disbarment case
against respondent for representing conflicting interest. #espondent asserted that when he
accepted to represent the occupants of the subject land in the criminal case, the attorney=client
relations between him and complainant had already been terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. "ontevedras act constitutes conflict of interest.
HELD: Yes. The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for
a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
#espondent, in his action, clearly violated #ule ?.4! of the Code of "rofessional
#esponsibility, to wit, $a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e6cept by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.% )ence, respondent was fined
the amount of "4,444.44 and warned that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.
Casta0eda vs. A%o
FACTS: Casta/eda and )enson filed a petition for replevin against Ago, in which petitioners
received a favorable decision. Ago, joined by his wife, abetted by their lawyer 'ose (. :uison,
persistently resist e6ecution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in the court. -nstead of
advising the Agos of the true merits of their position in the case, Atty. :uison showed
insistence despite the patent futility of his client@s position.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. :uison acted properly in handling the case.
HELD: *o. Atty. :uison violated #ule ?.4? of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility
which states that $a lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the meris and probable results of the clients case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.% -t is the duty of a counsel to advise his client on the merit or lac3 of
merit of his case. -f he finds that his client@s cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to
advise the latter to ac1uiesce and submit. A lawyer@s oath to uphold the cause of justice is
superior to his duty to his clientC its primacy is indisputable. Atty. :uison was compelled to
pay the treble cost assessed against the Agos.
ollon vs. -araval
FACTS: #ollon employed the legal services of Atty. *araval in a civil case for sum of money
filed against the former. The counsel failed to act on the case despite several follow=ups.
When complainant was withdrawing from respondents legal services, the latter also refused to
refund their payment stating that he has no money. #ollon later found out that the case had
long been final and e6ecutory but despite full 3nowledge of such, Atty. *araval withheld the
information.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. *aravals failure to inform his client of the vital information of
the case warrants disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. #ule ?.4? of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility re1uires that lawyers give
their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or lac3 of merit of the case, neither
overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof. Dnowing whether a case would have
some prospect of success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.
-f they find that their clients cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the
latter to ac1uiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. 0or his act, the
lawyer was suspended from the practice for 5 years.
Mer)ado vs. Se)urit# $an' Cor!oration
FACTS: (ercado was represented by Atty. Eillanueva in an appeal before the CA against
.ecurity &an3 Corporation where they received an unfavorable decision. The counsel
allegedly e6hibited gross negligence which caused the dismissal of their case. (ercado
averred that the action theyve ta3en, which was not the proper course, was a decision of Atty.
Eillanueva. They were made convinced in the latters action because respondent allegedly
assured complainants of the successful outcome of the case for he 3nows the ponente and that
the latter was a close friend of him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Atty. Eillanueva is proper.
HELD: *o. Atty. Eillanueva too3 the forbidden course. -n informing (ercado that he was ,a
very very good, close and long time friend, of the ponente, Atty. Eillanueva impressed upon
the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition of his case. .uch act of the respondent is
a clear violation of #ule ?.4A of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility which states that ,a
lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body.,
.onzales vs. Sa&a)ajan
FACTS: +on2ales filed an administrative case against Atty. .abacajan for refusing to give
them the Certificates of Title of their land. .abacajan contended that he too3 possession of the
certificates of title because +on2ales has monetary obligations to his client.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. .abacajans contention is tenable.
HELD: *o. #espondent, with his conduct, has disregarded #ule ?.4F of the Code of
"rofessional #esponsibility which provides that $a lawyer shall impress upon his client the
need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.% The alleged monetary
obligations of the complainant to his client does not warrant his act of confiscating the
certificates of title since the same were not given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt,
neither is there is a court order authori2ing him to ta3e and retain custody of said certificates
of title. As a result, Atty. .abacajan was suspended from the practice until the said titles are
returned bac3 to the complainants.
Millare vs. Montero
FACTS: Atty. (ontero was the counsel of the adverse party in the civil case for ejectment
filed by (illare. The latter received a favorable decision from (TC and #TC, and the same
already become final and e6ecutory. .till, the adverse party thru Atty. (ontero filed several
motions and petitions causing the delay of the judgments e6ecution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. (onteros act warrants disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. -t is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process for the
sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the e6ecution of a judgment. &y his conduct, Atty.
(ontero violated #ule ?.4F of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility which states that $a
lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and principles of fairn4ess.%
0urthermore, a lawyer is not a gun for hire. The code re1uires a lawyer to represent his client
,within the bounds of the law, and this shall enjoin him to employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client G#ule <.4H and warn him not to allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case G#ule <.4!H. 0or acting contrary to the code, Atty.
(ontero was suspended from the practice for year.
$ustamante/Alejandro vs. Alejandro
FACTS: 'ovita &ustamante=Alejandro filed a disbarment complaint against her husband Atty.
Tomas Alejandro on the ground of gross immorality. The fact that her husband has been
nominated as a regional trial court judge drove her to file this disbarment complaint insisting
that her husband is not fit to be a judge considering that he does not even possess the basic
integrity to remain as members of the "hilippine &ar for he carried on an illicit relationship
with Atty. (aricris A. Eillarin.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of respondent in his private life should affect his
professional capacity.
HELD: Yes. Inder #ule .4 of the Code of "rofessional #esponsibility, it was provided that
$a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.% *o
distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyers
professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citi2en at another. )e is e6pected to
be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the
laws in his private affairs, can hardly be e6pected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead
others in doing so. )ence, Atty. Alejandro, due to his grossly immoral conduct, was disbarred.