TOPIC: LAWYER’S OATH – GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO
(B.M. No. 712. July 13, 1995)
FELICIANO, J.:

FACTS:
A criminal information was filed on 4 February 1992 with the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 101, charging Mr. A.C. Argosino along with thirteen (13) other individuals, with
the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan on 8 September 1991. The
death of Raul Camaligan stemmed from the infliction of severe physical injuries upon him in the course
of "hazing" conducted as part of university fraternity initiation rites.

Less than a month later, on 13 July 1993, Mr. Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993
Bar Examinations. In this Petition, he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his then probation
status. He was allowed to take the 1993 Bar Examinations in this Court's En Banc Resolution dated 14
August 1993. He passed the Bar Examination. He was not, however, allowed to take the lawyer's oath of
office.

On 15 April 1994, Mr. Argosino filed a Petition with this Court to allow him to take
the attorney's oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law, averring that Judge Pedro T. Santiago
had terminated his probation period by virtue of an Order dated 11 April 1994.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner should allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office

HELD:
The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar
must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general
public. There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the legal profession is open
to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. The growth of such a perception would signal the
progressive destruction of our people's confidence in their courts of law and in our legal system as we
know it.

Mr. Argosino's participation in the deplorable "hazing" activities certainly fell far
short of the required standard of good moral character. The deliberate (rather thanmerely accidental or
inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries which proximatelyled to the death of the unfortunate
Raul Camaligan, certainly indicated serious characterflaws on the part of those who inflicted such
injuries. Mr. Argosino and his co-accusedhad failed to discharge their moral duty to protect the life and
well-being of a "neophyte"who had, by seeking admission to the fraternity involved, reposed trust and
confidencein all of them that, at the very least, he would not be beaten and kicked to death like a useless
stray dog. Thus, participation in the prolonged and mindless physical beatingsinflicted upon Raul
Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which
makes impossible a finding that the participant was then possessed of good moral character.
 TOPIC: LAWYER’S OATH, CANON 1
OBLES VS. DECIEMBRE
(A.C. No. 5365. April 27, 2005)
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:
Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her application for a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount
of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five Philippine National Bank
(PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241-45), which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as any
other loans that might be obtained in the future.

Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up four (of the five) blank PNB Checks
(Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243 and 0046244) for the amount of P50,000 each, with different dates of
maturity -- August 15, 1999, August 20, 1999, October 15, 1999 and November 15, 1999, respectively.

Several months after, or on January 20, 2000, respondent filed against petitioners another Affidavit-
Complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. He stated, among others, that on the same day, July 15,
1999, around two oclock in the afternoon at Quezon City, they again approached him and requested that
he exchange with cash PNB Check Nos. 0046243 and 0046244 totaling P100,000.

Petitioners insisted that on the afternoon of July 15, 1999, they never went either to Cainta, Rizal, or to
Quezon City to transact business with respondent. Allegedly, they were in their office at the time, as
shown by their Daily Time Records; so it would have been physically impossible for them to transact
business in Cainta, Rizal, and, after an interval of only thirty minutes, in Quezon City, especially
considering the heavy traffic conditions in those places.

In his Comment, respondent denied petitioners claims, which he called baseless and devoid of any truth
and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring their commitment
regarding their July 15, 1999 transactions. Those transactions, totaling P200,000, had allegedly been
covered by their four PNB checks that were, however, subsequently dishonored due to ACCOUNT
CLOSED. Thus, he filed criminal cases against them. He claimed that the checks had already been fully
filled up when petitioners signed them in his presence. He further claimed that he had given them the
amounts of money indicated in the checks, because his previous satisfactory transactions with them
convinced him that they had the capacity to pay.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. Deciembre violated the lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
YES. Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law.
It is equally essential to observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and the
exercise of the privilege. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. No moral qualification
for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor. The rigorous ethics of the profession
places a premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. Lawyers must be ministers of truth.
Hence, they must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they
are expected to act in good faith.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws.
 TOPIC: LAWYER’S OATH – CONFLICTING INTEREST
DE GUZMAN VS. DE DIOS
(A.C. No. 4943. Jan. 26, 2001)
PARDO, J.:

FACTS:
On January 10, 1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI)
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Complainant paid on respondent a monthly retainer fee of
P5,000.00.
On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed shares of stock
amounting to two million two hundred and thirty five thousand pesos (P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before
December 30, 1997.
On January 29, 1998, complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a
board resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale. Complainant soon learned that her shares had been
acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the corporation
completely. While respondent rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her lifes savings invested
therein.
Complainant pointed out that respondent appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings in a case where complainant
was one of the parties. Respondent, however, explained that she only appeared because the property involved
belonged to SBHI. Respondent alleged that complainant misunderstood the role of respondent as legal counsel of
Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. Respondent manifested that her appearance as counsel for complainant Diana de Guzman
was to protect the rights and interest of SBHI since the latter was real owner of the land in controversy.
Respondent further said that the land on which the resort was established belonged to the Japanese incorporators, not
to complainant. The relationship of the complainant and the Japanese investors turned sour because complainant
misappropriated the funds and property of the corporation. To save the corporation from bankruptcy, respondent
advised all concerned stockholders that it was proper to call for the payment of unpaid subscriptions and subsequent
sale of the delinquent shares. These lead to the auction of the unpaid shares of complainant and hence, the ouster of
complainant from the corporation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent has conflicting interest and violated the lawyer’s oath

HELD:
YES. How complainant got ousted from the corporation considering the amount she had invested in it is beyond
us. Granting that the sale of her delinquent shares was valid, what happened to her original shares? This, at least, should
have been explained.
Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It
was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant.
There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board of directors now
included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as
treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director. The present situation shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be
overemphasized. Considering that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is
imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no
place in the legal profession.
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a
lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation
thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are
clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
 TOPIC: MALPRACTICE AND GROSS MISCONDUCT
MELEGRITO VS. BARBA
(58 PHIL 513. Oct. 2, 1993)
VICKERS, J.:

FACTS:
In February, 1930, the complainants engaged the respondent attorney to appeal their cases to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and agreed to pay him P6,500. The respondent sailed for the United States in
October, 1930, and returned in March, 1931. While in the United States he went to Washington and
secured a letter of introduction from the Vice-President of the United States to the Governor-General of
the Philippine Islands in the hope of being appointed a member of the Governor-General's staff. It does
not appear that the respondent made any attempt, either in Manila or in Washington, to take the cases of
the complainants to the Supreme Court of the United States, because, as the respondent states, the
decision of this court had become final and unappealable, and the records had been returned to the Court
of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The only thing which the respondent did, after examining the record,
before leaving for the United states, was to go to Tarlac and have the complainants sign affidavits
respecting their claims to the land, for which he collected P2.50 from each of the complainants; seven
months after his return from the United States, when the complainants had already demanded the return of
the money which they had paid him, the respondent petitioned the Governor-General to order a survey of
the boundary line between Nueva Ecija and Tarlac Provinces. The object of this petition, the respondent
asserts, was to show that the lands claimed by Felix Melegrito et al., were not situated in Nueva Ecija
Province, but in Tarlac. The complainants informed the Governor-General that they were not interested in
having the boundary line between the two provinces surveyed, but in recovering the money which they
had paid the respondent.la

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent has committed malpractice

HELD:
YES. The respondent attorney is guilty of malpractice. He collected several thousand pesos from the
complainants for the purpose of taking their cases to the Supreme Court of The United States, but he
never removed said cases to that court or attempted to do so, because the decision of this court had
already become final and unappealable, and he was guilty of deceit in concealing that fact from the
complainants while collecting fees from them for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.

It appears from the testimony of Felix Melegrito that in April, 1931, he made a demand on the respondent
for the return of the money which the complainants had paid him, and the respondent promised to repay
the sum of P1,500 at once and the remainder at the rate of P50 a month, but that the respondent has never
repaid any sum to the complainants.
 TOPIC: RULE 10.01, CANON 10
CHUA VS. MESINA
(A.C. NO. 4904. AUG. 12, 2004)
PER CURIAM

FACTS:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon
M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. Respondent's mother defaulted in
paying a loan that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother if
paying the said obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among that that in
consideration for the act of complainants, the property which they are leasing will be transferred to their
name. The complainants complied with the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning such
property was executed.

However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent instructed complainants to execute
another deed of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in effective.
Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents instructed his clients [complainants] to
execute a simulated deed of sale which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to his mother.

The cunning acts of respondent did not end there. Respondent went to the house of complainants and got
the owners certificate of title of the said property which is still under the name of her mother. he promised
to the complainants that he will process the transfer of the property to their name. Years passed, but
respondent never returned the said title to the complainants.

Meanwhile, another lessee file a criminal case against the complainants and respondents for falsification.
He claims that was also given the promise that the property will be offered to him before it will be sold to
another, but respondents sold it to complainants without offering to him. Because of the foregoing
circumstances, complainants filed an administrative case against respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct

HELD:
Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of
capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government
is aggravating.

Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale
wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.

Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owner’s copy of his mother’s title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale
executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.

That the signature of “Felicisima M. Melencio” in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.
 TOPIC: GROSS MISCONDUT – FAILURE TO PAY DEBT
TOLEDO VS. ABALOS
(A.C. No. 5131. Sept. 29, 1999)
MELO, J.:

FACTS:
On July 9, 1981, Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within
six months from date, plus interest of 5% per month. To guarantee the payment of said obligation,
respondent executed a Promissory Note. After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated demands,
respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid that she will not recover her money, Ms. Toledo sought the
help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which referred the matter to the Commission on Bar
Discipline

On February 1, 1995, the Commission issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to file her Answer to the
letter-complaint of Ms. Toledo. Despite receipt of said order, respondent did not answer the complaint.

On August 17, 1995, Investigating Commissioner Benjamin B. Bernardino, issued an order setting the
case for hearing on September 29, 1995 at 2 p.m. Despite due notice, respondent failed to appear.
Accordingly, complainant was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte after which, the case was
considered submitted for resolution. Respondent received this order as shown by the registry return.
However, she again did not do anything about it.

On June 19, 1999, the Commission passed a resolution recommending the suspension from the practice of
law of respondent for a period of six months "for her flouting resistance to lawful orders of the Court and
illustrating her despiciency of her oath of office as a lawyer." The Commission, however, declined to
discipline her for failing to meet her financial obligation, the same having been incurred in her private
capacity.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for not paying debt

HELD:
NO. The Court agree with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the IBP or by this
Court for failing to pay her obligation to complainant. Complainant's remedy is to file a collection case before
a regular court of justice against respondent. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or
disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-
professional or private capacity.

The Court, however, find the recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months
to be grossly disproportionate to the act complained of, i.e., her failure to appear before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP. With her legal knowledge and expertise, respondent may have known all along that
the Commission has no jurisdiction over a complaint for collection of a sum of money which she borrowed in
her private capacity. Hence, her adamant refusal to appear before said body.

The Court do not, of course, ignore the fact that by virtue of one's membership in the IBP, a lawyer thus
submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the organization. However, as the complaint lodged against the
respondent in the case at hand did not pertain to an act that she committed in the exercise of her profession, the
IBP need not assume jurisdiction to discipline respondent. As the Commission on Bar Discipline correctly
suggested, complainant's remedy is to file the necessary collection case in court for her to recover the amount
respondent owed her.
 TOPIC: LAWYER’S OATH AND GROSS IMMORAL CONDUCT
COJUANGCO VS. PALMA
(A.C. No. 2474. Sept. 15, 2004)
PER CURIAM

FACTS:
On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainant’s family, respondent married Lisa in
Hongkong. It was only the nextday that respondent informed complainant and assured him that
"everything is legal." Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and
has three children. Upon investigation, complainant found that respondent courted Lisa during their
tutoring sessions. Immediately, complainant sent his two sons to Hongkong to convince Lisa to go home
to Manila and discuss the matter with the family. Lisa was persuaded.

Complainant also came to know that: (a) on the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from
his (complainant’s) office an airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hong Kong; (b)
respondent misrepresented himself as "bachelor" before the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his
marriage with Lisa; and (c) respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three children,
namely: Eugene Philippe, Elias Anton and Eduardo Lorenzo.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Palma should be disbarred

HELD:
YES. Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree
of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which
is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards
among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
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 citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even
his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the
profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.
Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he cannot be
charged with immorality. His reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of
marriage. In such relationship, the man and the woman are obliged to live together, observe mutual
respect and fidelity.How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa when he was previously
married to Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away.