1. Diana Ramos v Atty.

Imbang

Facts: Case about disbarment/suspension against Atty. Imbang for multiple violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ramos sought Atty. Imbang’s assistance in filing civil and criminal actions against Jovellano
Spouses. She gave Imbang 8500 as attorney’s fees but latter issues a receipt for 5000 only.
Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases however Imbang never allowed her
to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would come out of the courtoom
several hrs to inform her that the hearing had been CANCELLED & RESCHEDULED.
Happened 6 times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent charged her for 350.
Ramos became suspicious and checked the status of her cases in the trial courts. Shocked that
respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was employed in
the Public Attorney’s Office.

Issue: WON Atty. Imbang should be disbarred

Held: Violated Section 7 of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

That is shall be unlawful for public officials to engage in the private practice unless
authorized by the Constitution/law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official
function.

He also let Ramos to believe that he really filed a complaint against the Jovellanoses, making it
appear that the cases were being tried for demanding the payment of his appearance fees
which are violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is subject to
disbarment.

2. Tan v Atty. Balon, Jr

Facts: Tan filed an action against Atty. Balon Jr. for misappropriation of funds and issuance of
bum checks.

Engaged Atty’s services with regard to the returned checks issued to Tan by Jose Guisande.
Atty sent demand letters but failed to inform Tan about the status of the same.
Tan then engaged the services of another lawyer, Atty Jubay who filed estafa against Guisande.
Guisande’s counsel informed them that out of 96 000 pesos originally owned, 60,000 was
already collected by Atty. Balon.
When confronted, Balon offered to pay the balance via two postdated checks. Such checks
bounced for the “account was closed” when presented for payment.

Issue: WON Atty Balon Jr. should be disbarred

Held: No. It was found that respondent was already disbarred prior to this present complaint.
However, he is liable for INDIRECT CONTEMPT under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court which provides that a person may be punished for indirect contempt for:

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;

3. Bernardo v Atty. Mejia

Facts: Petition for reinstatement in the practice of law filed by Mejia, 71 yrs old and was barred
from the practice of law for 15 years.
Antecedent facts: Bernardo accused his attorney, Mejia for the following
Misappropriation of his real estate properties and funds
Falsification of certain documents
Issued a bouncing check

Herein Mejia begging for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. That he has long repented
and suffered enough. That he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the indignity
that they have suffered due to his disbarment.

Put up the Mejia Law Journal, containing his religious and social writings, organized a religious
organization “El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind”

Issue: WON Mejia should be reinstated.

Held: Yes. The Court took cognizance of the rehabiitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment, no
transgression has been attibuted to him, and he has shown remorse.

4. Sebastian v Atty. Bajar

Facts:
Bajar was a lawyer for the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) who represented Tanlioco in numerous cases which raised the same
issues. Tanlioco was an agricultural lessee of a land owned by Petitioner’s spouse and sister in
law.
Landowners filed an ejectment case against Tanlionco on the basis of conversion order of the
land use from agricultural to residential.
RTC decided in landowners favor subject to the payment of disturbance compensation.
^ affirmed by CA and SC

Bajar filed another case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion order. RTC
dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and lack of cause of action.
Filed another case for Maintenance of Possession with the DAR Adjudication Board which
raised the same issues of conversion and disturbance compensation.

Sebastian then filed a Disbarment complaint for “obstructing, resisting, rebelling, and impeding
final decsions of RTCs, CAs and of the SC and for the contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics.”

Issue: WON Bajar should be disbarred

Held: No. Suspension only for 3 years. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. It is
evident from the records that respondent filed other cases to thwart the execution of the final
judgment in the Ejectment case. Clearly, respondent violated the proscription in Canon 19.

CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
law.

Respondent's act of filing cases with identical issues in other venues despite the final ruling
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the bounds of the
law.

5. Pangasinan Electric Coop (PANELCO) v. Atty. Montemayor

Facts: Complaint against respondent counsel for negligence in handling the cases assigned to
him which cause unwarranted financial losses to the Plaintiff.

Negligent on the following occasions

First civil case in Rural Power Corporation v PANELCO - lost in trial court, appealed to CA but
was dismissed due to Montemayor’s FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED NUMBER OF COPIES
OF WRIT OF EXECUTION. This caused a loss to PANELCO of worth P2M.
Second civil case ECO-ASIA v. PANELCO - decision reached CA but was considered
abandoned due to FAILURE TO SERVE AND FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF despite lapse of 2
granted motion of extensions. This caused a loss to PANELCO of worth 13.8M.
When confronted, all Montemayor could say was “Napabayaan ko tong kaso.. ano gagawin
natin?”

Issue: WON Monemayor should be disbarred

Held: Yes. Canons 12,17,18, and 19. He fell short of the competence and diligence required of
every member of the Bar in relation to his client. He had the duty to present every remedy or
defense authorized by law to protect his client.
He should undertake the task with dedicatin and care, and if he should do no less then he is not
true to his lawyer’s oath.