Case Digest:
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months.
WILLEM KUPERS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOHNSON B.
HONTANOSAS, Respondent.
May 8, 2009
Tinga, J.
FACTS:
Willem Kupers filed an administrative case against
respondent Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas. He alleged that
Atty. Hontanosas respondent had:
(1) prepared and notarized contracts that are invalid
and illegal as it violated the limitations on aliens leasing
private lands;
(2) served conflicting interests since he performed legal
services for adverse parties;
(3) refused to furnish copies of the contracts he
notarized to the parties thereof;
(4) notarized documents without keeping copies
thereof and
(5) failed to properly discharge his duty to his client
Karl Novak, particularly when respondent allegedly
refused to accept his dismissal as counsel for Novak, failed
to turn over Novak's documents thereafter, handled
legal matters without adequate preparation,
betrayed Novak's trust and refused to see Novak with
a translator of Novak's choice.
Willem claimed that Atty. Hontanosas prepared two
memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease
between:
1. Spouses Busse and Hochstrasser, a Swiss national.
Lease of Busse property in Alcoy, Cebu for 50years,
renewable for another fifty 50 years. Both were his
clients.
2. Spouses Busse and Karl Emberger, a Swiss national,
Lease pf parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. For a period of
forty nine (49) years renewable for another forty nine
(49) years.
All these documents were notarized by him.
Willem also said that respondent drafted two deeds of sale
over the leased properties of Spouses Busse to Naomie
Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl Novak, a German National.
 the Court resolved to refer the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Hontanosas committed gross
misconduct in dealing with his clients mentioned in
this case.
RULING:
The Commissioner found that respondent violated
Presidential Decree No. 471 (P.D. No. 471) since leases of
private lands by aliens cannot exceed twenty five (25)
years, renewable for another twenty five (25) years when
he prepared and notarized said documents. But,
complainant failed to prove the other charges he had hurled
against respondent.
The commissioner recommended that respondent be
IBP Board of Governors disregarded the
recommendation of the commissioner and dismissed
the complaint because they said that acts was not illegal
per se, lease agreement was likely made to reflect the
agreement among the parties without considering the
legality of the situation. While admittedly respondent may
be guilty of ignorance of the law or plain negligence, the
Board dismissed the complaint out of compassion.
The Court reject Board’s recommendation. We stress
that much is demanded from those who engage in the
practice of law because they have a duty not only to their
clients, but also to the court, to the bar, and to the
public. The lawyer's diligence and dedication to his
work and profession ideally should not only promote
the interests of his clients. A lawyer has the duty to
attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect for
the legal profession.
The investigating commissioner and the IBP Board of
Governors both found that the majority of the charges
against the respondent lack proof.
However, administrative cases against lawyers are sui
generes and as such the complainant in the case need not
be the aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a
party to the contracts, the charge of drafting and notarizing
contracts in contravention of law holds weight. A plain
reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate
the law limiting lease of private lands to aliens for a period
of twenty five (25) years renewable for another twenty five
(25) years.
In his defense, he said that the contracts are valid under
Republic Act No. 7652 (R.A. No. 7652), entitled "An Act
Allowing The Long-Term Lease of Private Lands by Foreign
Investors." They add that these contracts should not be
viewed purely as lease contracts since they allow the leasor
to nominate a Filipino citizen or corporation to purchase the
subject property within the lease period.
Respondent, by drafting the questioned lease agreements,
caused his clients to violate Section 7 of R.A. No. 7652
In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts,
respondent violated the Attorney's Oath and several canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the
foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to "obey the
laws of the Philippines."
The other canons of professional responsibility which
respondent transgressed are the following:
CANON 15 and Rule 15.07 and CANON 17 . Aside from
constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of
respondents also amount to gross misconduct under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, is
found GUILTY of violating the lawyer's oath and gross
misconduct. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SPS. TEJADA, Petitioners vs.
ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAÑA, Respondent.
August 23, 2007
Velasco, Jr., J.
Spouses Rosita and Amador Tejada filed a
Complaint Affidavit before IBP to initiate disbarment
against Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaña for his continued refusal
to settle his long overdue loan obligation to them. in
violation of his sworn duty as a lawyer to do justice to every
man and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of CPR.
FACTS:
On Jan. 2001, Atty. Palana, taking advantage of his special
knowledge as a lawyer, represented to the Tejada’s that he
has a parcel of land which he can reconstitute the torrens
title for an amount of P100,000 as security. He induced the
Tejada’s to finance the reconstitution with a promise that
he will deliver the title as security to the amount they had
financed.
He also promised that the spouses shall earn 70K from the
100K they had financed. Hence he will pay them total of
P170K and that he will deliver and reconstitute title all
within a period of three months as stated in their written
agreement dated January 12, 2001.
However, after Atty. Palana had gotten the P100K amount
from the spouses, he from that time on up to the present
had intentionally evaded the performance of his due, just,
legal and demandable obligations to the spouses.
It turned out that all his assurances were all fraudulent
representations. Legal demands had already been made to
Atty. Palana to fulfill all his moral and legal responsibilities
to spouses but all of said demands simply went unheeded.
Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to
the complaint as required by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP. He likewise failed to appear on the
scheduled date of the mandatory conference despite due
notice.
March 10, 2005, the IBP declared respondent to have
waived his right to submit evidence and to participate
further in the proceedings of the case.
Investigating Commissioner Soriano III, after consideration
of pleadings and evidences, filed a report in IBP stating that
he is guilty of misconduct thus recommended for 3 mos.
Suspension.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Palana is guilty of Misconduct?
RULING: Yes. The Court find no reason to disturb the
findings of Commissioner Soriano after reviewing of records
sans the submittal of any response or evidence from
respondent.
Respondent, like all other members of the bar, is expected
to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following
Canons, viz:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for
legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair
dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar.
The court find that the complainants could not have
defrauded the client without the representation that he can
fulfill his promises due to his legal knowledge. He knew that
his representations were false since the filing fee for a
petition for reconstitution in 2001 was only PhP 3,145, and
other expenses including the publication of the filing of the
petition could not have cost more than PhP 20,000. He
clearly employed deceit in this case.
His disobedience to the IBP is in reality a gross and blatant
disrespect to the Court. Lawyers fully know, as respondent
is aware or at least is assumed to know, that lawyers like
him cannot disobey the orders and resolutions of the Court.
Failing in this duty as a member of the bar which is being
supervised by the Court under the Constitution, we find that
a heavier sanction should fall on respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaña is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months and is ordered to settle his loan obligation
to petitioners-spouses Amador and Rosita Tejada within
two (2) months from the date of this Decision’s
promulgation.
This Decision is immediately executory.
WALTER WILKIE, Complainant, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E.
LIMOS, Respondent.
October 24, 2008
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J
This is an administrative case dated April 27, 20051
forwarded to the IBP, National Office against Atty. Limos.
It was alleged that the respondent committed deceitful and
dishonest conduct when she obtained a loan from the
complainant and issued two (2) postdated checks in the
latter's favor to pay the said loan despite knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to cover the same.
FACTS:
On April 2, 2003, Mr. Wilkie engaged the services of
Atty.Limos regarding his intention of adopting his wife's
nephew, Reynal Alsaen Taltalen.
Despite their lawyer -client relationship, on March 30,
2003, Atty. Limos borrowed P250,000.00 to Wilkie. The
loan agreement was evidenced by a Contract of Loan with
24% per annum interest and stated that respondent will
issue two (2) post dated checks representing the principal
amount of P250,000.00 and the interest in the amount of
P60,000.00.
When the checks became due, complainant deposited the
same to his account at Equitable PCI Bank but to his
surprise and dismay, the checks were returned as they
were drawn against insufficient funds. Despite demands
made, Atty. Limos failed to pay her obligation.
Wilkie withdrawn as well the adoption case from her since
he did not do anything about it for almost two years. CBD
through Investigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-
Maala sent order and notice which the latter failed to
answer and comply after given a non extendible 10 days
period. Thus, the Commissioner considered respondent in
default and deemed the case submitted for report and
recommendation in her Order8
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Limos is guilty of gross misconduct
RULING:
Yes. A lawyer who issued bouncing checks violates the law
and is subject to disbarment or suspension. Violation of B.P.
22 is considered a crime involving moral turpitude as this
mischief creates not only a wrong to the payee or holder,
but also an injury to the public.
Although it does not relate to the exercise of the profession
of a lawyer, however, it certainly relates to and affects the
good moral character of a person. The Court has stressed
that the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires
that she shall be a person of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to the
practice of law; its continued possession is also essential
for remaining in the practice of law.
 Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation: 2 years suspension suspension.
Board of Governors of the IBP, adopted and approved
recommendation with modification that she is hereby
REPRIMANDED with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
similar conduct will be dealt with more severely.
Additional Records was transmitted to the Court by IBP
including explanation of Atty. Stating that she was she was
not able to attend the mandatory conference/hearing
because she was physically unfit at that time. Respondent's
bare claim that the loan was, in fact, only an
accommodation for a former client who according to
respondent had already died cannot be given credence and,
indeed, too specious to be believed
SC find the records sufficient to support the IBP's findings
In this case, the Atty. Limos has fully paid her obligation to
the complainant which according to the receipts dated July
21, 2005 and August 24, 2005,29 amounted to
P400,000.00. The criminal cases filed by the complainant
have been dismissed and this is the first time a complaint
of such nature has been filed against the respondent. Under
these circumstances, the Court rules and so holds that a
suspension of three months from the practice of law would
be sufficient sanction on the respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar E. Limos is
SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS from the practice of law
with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will
merit a more severe penalty. Let a copy of this Decision be
entered in the respondent's record as a member of the Bar,
and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.
MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ANDREW V. FERRER, Respondent.
June 18, 2008
QUISUMBING, J.:
For resolution is the Complaint of Marjorie F. Samaniego
against respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer for immorality,
abandonment and willful refusal to give support to their
daughter, filed before IBP.
FACTS:
Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer
as a potential client. Atty. Ferrer agreed to handle her cases
and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.
Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in
love with him. He said she flirted with him and he
succumbed to her temptations. Thereafter, they lived
together as "husband and wife" from 1996 to 1997, and on
March 12, 1997, their daughter was born. The affair ended
in 20006 and since then he failed to give support to their
daughter.
Hence this petition for support. During hearing he refused
to appear because he said that he did not want to see Ms.
Samaniego.
In his position paper,Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness
to support their daughter. He also admitted his indiscretion;
however, he prayed that the IBP consider Ms. Samaniego's
complicity as she was acquainted with his wife and children.
He further reasoned that he found it unconscionable to
abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit with Ms.
Samaniego
 IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
and imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the penalty of six (6)
months suspension from the practice of law for his
refusal to support his daughter with Ms. Samaniego.
The IBP also admonished him to be a more responsible
member of the bar and to keep in mind his duties as a
father.
 February 1, 2006, Atty. Ferrer filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to reduce the penalty which was
denied by the Office of the Bar Confidant.
ISSUE: W/N the act of Atty. Ferrer constitutes gross
immoral conduct subject to harsher punishment of IBP
RULING: Yes. The Court agree with the IBP on Atty.
Ferrer's failure to give support to his daughter with Ms.
Samaniego. They agree with the Office of the Bar Confidant
that Atty. Ferrer's affair with Ms. Samaniego showed his
lack of good moral character as a member of the bar. We
dismiss, however, Ms. Samaniego's charge of abandonment
since Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them. He returned to his
family.
On another point, we may agree with respondent's
contention that complainant was not entirely blameless.
She knew about his wife but blindly believed him to be
unmarried. However, that one complicit in the affair
complained of immorality against her co-principal does not
make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether
Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.21 We must emphasize
that this Court's investigation is not about Ms. Samaniego's
acts but Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers and his
fitness to continue as a member of the Bar
Finally, it is opportune to remind Atty. Ferrer and all
members of the bar of the following norms under the CPR:
Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03
Needless to state, respondent ought always to keep in mind
the responsibilities of a father to all his children. If there be
a resultant hardship on them because of this case, let it be
impressed on all concerned that the direct cause thereof
was his own misconduct.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer
GUILTY of gross immorality and, as recommended by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, SUSPEND him from the practice of law for six
(6) months effective upon notice hereof, with WARNING
that the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
To enable us to determine the effectivity of the penalty
imposed, the respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of
his receipt of this Decision to this Court.
REBECCA B. ARNOBIT, Complainant, v. ATTY.
PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT, Respondent
October 17, 2008
PER CURIAM:
Rebecca B. Arnobit, in her affidavit-complaint May 11,
1975, prays that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
over her husband, Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds
of Immorality and Abandonment.
FACTS:
August 20, 1942, Rebecca and Atty. Ponciano got married
and were blessed with 12 children. She alleged
continuously supporting him through law school until he
passed the bar examinations and became a member of the
Philippine bar. Several years after, however, or in 1968,
respondent left the conjugal home and started cohabiting
with one Benita Buenafe Navarro who later bore him four
more children. Respondent's infidelity, according to
Rebecca, impelled her to file a complaint for legal
separation and support. A criminal case for adultery against
Benita and respondent later followed.
In his Answer he admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife
and the mother of their 12 children. He denied, however,
having cohabited with Benita. And he pointed to his
complaining wife as the cause of their separation, stating
the observation that she was "always traveling all over the
country, ostensibly for business purposes, without his
knowledge and consent, thereby neglecting her obligations
toward her family.
During hearing Rebecca presented evidence and witness
(husband of Benita, proof of filiation of the 4 children)
 Commission found respondent liable for abandonment
and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) months
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Ponciano is guilty only of
abandonment
RULING: No. the Court believed that the charge for gross
immoral conduct has sufficiently been proven. Following
established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be
disbarred.
CPR provides: Rule 1.01, CANON 7, Rule 7.03
As this Court often reminds members of the bar, the
requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning. Good moral character is not
only a condition precedent for admission to the legal
profession, but it must also remain intact in order to
maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored
fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the
absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself
in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the
resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must
be so because "vast interests are committed to his care; he
is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals
with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all.
Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference
to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree or committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.
Undoubtedly, respondent's act of leaving his wife and 12
children to cohabit and have children with another woman
constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to
injury, there seems to be little attempt on the part of
respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other
woman.
As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against
a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to maintain an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him a
child.12 In the instant case, respondent's grossly immoral
conduct compels the Court to wield its power to disbar. The
penalty is most appropriate under the premises.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby
DISBARRED. Let a copy of this Decision be entered into the
records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant and
his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Likewise,
copies of this Decision shall be furnished the IBP and
circulated by the Court Administrator to all appellate and
trial courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
August 1, 2007
PER CURIAM:
Joselano Guevarra filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for
Disbarment before IBP CBD against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for "grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
FACTS:
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his then-
fiancee Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her
friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he
had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as
messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or
"Meet you at Megamall."
He noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at
night or early in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked
about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with
her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and
respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene
abandoned the conjugal house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's
birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent
celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the
conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings,
pieces of furniture, and her share of the household
appliances.
He later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social
card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card
when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated
October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene, stating
his Vow of love to her.
In the complaint filed the respondent answer the following:
C: I LOVE YOU note.| A: Respondent admitted
C: Flaunting their Adulterous Relationship
|A: their relationship is low profile and known only to
immediate members of family
C: Abandoning own family thus morally unfit to be member
of the bar.
|A: He maintained civil cordial and peaceful relationship
with his wife- Irene.
C aversion to the institution of marriage by calling the
institution of marriage a mere piece of paper
|A: Denies. Because reference was to the marriage contract
C: Irene's daughter Samantha Louise Irene Moje's
Certificate of Live Birth. In said certificate, Irene named
respondent – a "lawyer," 38 years old – as the child's
father.
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan recommended that respondent be
disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7.
The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set
aside the Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack
of merit
RULING:
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between
respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven by more
than clearly preponderant evidence – that evidence
adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible
than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater
weight than the other32 – which is the quantum of evidence
needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
Respondent still contest that their relationship does not fall
“under scandalous circumstance” does not deny that he had
an extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit brief and
discreet, and which act is not "so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree" in order to merit
disciplinary sanction. We disagree.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED
for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office,
and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-
HENARES, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO "ARGEE"
C. GUEVARRA, Respondent.
December 01, 2016
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The administrative case arose complaint1 for disbarment
filed by complainant Vicky Belo (complainant) against Atty.
Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra for alleged violations of Rules
1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 8.01 of
Canon 8; and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
Belo is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the
Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly
organized and existing under Philippine laws and engaged
in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery. On the other
hand, Atty. Guevarrat is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina
"Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed criminal cases against
complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on
her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing
infection and making her ill in 2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook
account: insulting and verbally abusing complainant. His
posts include the following
excerpts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArgee
Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to
get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client's Ass, Belo.
Senator Adel Tamano, don't kiss Belo's ass. Among
others.
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene
language, were designed to inspire public hatred, destroy
her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well
as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident
from his demand letter35 dated August 26, 2009,
complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment
against respondent before the IBP.
In defense, he claimed that the complaint was filed in
violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy,
asserting that the posts quoted by complainant were
private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant
to be shared only with his circle of friends of which
complainant was not a part.38 He also averred that he wrote
the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and
contended that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal
cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against
complainant.He denied that the remarks were vulgar and
obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public
hatred against complainant.40 He likewise denied that he
attempted to extort money from her, explaining that he
sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing
of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for
damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out that
complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the
subject of fair comment.
IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended for
a period of one (1) year from the practice of law, with a
stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.
And was recommended by IBP board of Governors.
Respondent moved for reconsideration
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be held administratively
liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint.
RULING:
Yes. The Court concurs with the IBP's findings, except as
to the penalty imposed on respondent.
the Court notes that respondent never denied that he
posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about
complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In
defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming
that they were "private remarks" on his "private
account"57 that can only be viewed by his circle of friends.
Thus, when complainant accessed the same, she violated
his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
The defense is untenable.
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to
"Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the
prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's
circle of friends.
Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject
remarks were written in the exercise of his freedom of
speech and expression.
Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech
and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
absolute.
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and
obscene language, and his act of publicly insulting and
undermining the reputation of complainant through the
subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and
utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
Professional
Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRule 7.03, Rule
8.01, Rule 19.01
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at
complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum
at all times, be it in his public or private life
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and
therefore, a public personage who is exposed to
criticism72 does not justify respondent's disrespectful
language.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C.
Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01,
and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision,
and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
PATRICIA FIGUEROA, Complainant, v. SIMEON
BARRANCO, JR., Respondent.
July 31, 1997
ROMERO, J
SYNOPSIS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Patricia Figueroa
way back in 1971, against respondent Simeon Barranco Jr.,
a successful bar candidate in the 1970 Bar examination,
praying thereto that herein respondent be denied
admission to the legal profession. In her petition,
complainant averred that respondent and she had been
sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them
and that respondent failed to fulfill his promise to marry her
after he passes the bar examinations. Hence, complainant
charged him of gross immorality.
The Supreme Court ruled that these facts do not constitute
gross immorality warranting permanent exclusion of herein
respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with the complainant and
promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on
his part but the same does not constitute gross immoral
conduct. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act
complained of must not only be immoral but grossly
immoral. Additionally, even assuming that his past
indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that
respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer
constitute sufficient punishment therefor. Henceforth, the
Court hereby dismissed the instant petition and herein
respondent should be allowed to take his lawyer’s oath.
FACTS:
Respondent and complainant were townmates in Janiuay,
Iloilo. Since 1953, when they were both in their teens, they
were steadies. Respondent even acted as escort to
complainant when she reigned as Queen at the 1953 town
fiesta. Complainant first acceded to sexual congress with
respondent sometime in 1960. Their intimacy yielded a son,
Rafael Barranco, born on December 11, 1964. 1 It was after
the child was born, complainant alleged, that respondent
first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
examinations. Their relationship continued and respondent
allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of
marriage. He gave only P10.00 for the child on the latter’s
birthdays. Her trust in him and their relationship ended in
1971, when she learned that respondent married another
woman. Hence, this petition.
After several opposition of the Complainant. And denial of
oath taking of respondent. The case was referred to IBP.
ISSUE: w/N respondent be allowed to take his oath
RULING: YES. The Court agree with IBPs recommendation
the dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to
take the lawyer’s oath.
Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer’s oath in
1971 because of the charges of gross immorality made by
complainant. To recapitulate, respondent bore an
illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who
also claims that he did not fulfill his promise to marry her
after he passes the bar examinations.
We find that these facts do not constitute gross
immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises
to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part
but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment
the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. "A grossly immoral act is one that is so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to
a high degree." It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.
Arciga v. Maniwang :mere intimacy between a man and
a woman, both of whom possess no impediment to marry,
voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part
of respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as
to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against
him, even if as a result of such relationship a child was born
out of wedlock
Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
sexual relations were evidently consensual. We do not find
complainant’s assertions that she had been forced into
sexual intercourse, credible.
We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act of
revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the
end. It is also intended to make respondent suffer severely
and it seems, perpetually, sacrificing the profession he
worked very hard to be admitted into. Even assuming that
his past indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that
respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer
constitute sufficient punishment therefor. During this time
there appears to be no other indiscretion attributed to him.
10 Respondent, who is now sixty-two years of age, should
thus be allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyer’s oath.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. is ALLOWED to take his
oath as a lawyer upon payment of the proper fees.
 therein and, therefore, punishable by penalties of perjury.
ANNABELLE J. POMPERADA, complainant, The same exhibits were mute yet unshakable proof that
vs.BENJAMIN JOCHICO y PAMA, respondent. respondent had for almost (9) years maintained an illicit
November 21, 1984 relationship with complainant when he made to believe her
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: to believe that they are truly married.

Benjamin P. Jochico, a successful Bar examinee in 1981, it was a long and clear admission of illicit liaison with
was disallowed by the Court to join the mass oathtaking on complainant for nine (9) years and filing of false
May 4, 1982 because of a written formal complaint filed by income tax returns that do not speak well of his
complainant, Annabelle J. Pomperada, with this Court standards of decency and morality.
charging him of grossly immoral conduct and actuations
Recommended that a finding that respondent Benjamin
that make him unfit to become a member of the Philippine
Jochico y Pama had committed gross immoral conduct as
Bar.
charged and, therefore, should be disallowed to take the
oath as a member of the Philippine Bar be made, to
FACTS:
continue until such time when he can show the Honorable
On February 20, 1979, complainant and respondent agreed Court that he has amended his ways and has conformed to
to get married and respondent facilitated all the necessary the rules of conduct that are necessarily required as
papers and documents for a marriage contract which turned accepted standards of members of the legal profession in
out to be fake. Pama had Pomperada sign a prepared this Court.
marriage contract and when complainant when she asked
Respondent's testimony was a long and clear admission of
if necessary for them to appear before the officiating judge,
illicit liaison with Complainant for nine years, and before
he said that it was not necessary because the judge knew
that with another woman, and of the filing of false Income
personally both of them. He assured complainant that he
Tax Returns. Those actuations do not conform to the
would just take care of the signing of the marriage contract
standard norms of honesty, decency and moral conduct
by Judge Felino Garcia of the City Court of Bacolod later he
required of an aspiring member of the legal profession.
gave her a copy of the marriage contract which appeared
to have been signed already by Judge Garcia; ACCORDINGLY, the petition of respondent to be allowed to
take the oath as a member of the Bar and to sign the Roll
a verification, however, revealed that the marriage
of Attorneys is hereby denied.
between complainant and respondent was not registered in
the Local Civil Registrar's Office and in a further
confrontation with Judge Felino Garcia the latter denied
having signed the marriage contract ... and denied as his
own the signature which purports to be the signature of
Judge Felino Garcia in the marriage contract;

Jochico filed income tax returns jointly with Nenita

Martelino Ureta, the latter indicated as his spouse for the
years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and enumerated
two children as dependents. Then in the years 1979 and
1980 he indicated Anabelle as spouse.

Thus the complain: that respondent is not fit to become a

member of the Philippine Bar because, instead of being a
trustworthy defender of the legal rights of individuals,
respondent will be a disgrace to the legal profession as he
has already shown to be grossly dishonest, seriously
immoral and unhesitant in openly violating our laws.

ISSUE: W/N Pama should be disallowed to take his oath

based on the complaint.

RULING:

Yes. Evidence showed that respondent have had illicit

liaison with Nenita Martelino Ureta and had begotten
illegitimate children with her; and that respondent had
falsified and untruthfully filed up his income tax returns His
defense that he had to write the name of Nenita Martelino
Ureta as wife in said income tax returns in conformity with
accounting practice because when dependent children are
claimed as deductible items for income tax purposes the
name of their mother must also appear, did not for a
moment erase the established fact that said income tax
returns were not truthful accounts of the data contained
AQUILINA BITANGCOR, complainant,
vs.RODOLFO M. TAN, respondent
and
JOSEFINA PEREDO, complainant,
vs.RODOLFO M. TAN, respondent.
February 25, 1982
MAKASIAR, J.:
These two administrative complaints charge Rodolfo M.
Tan, a successful 1971 bar examinee, of immorality, with
prayers to prevent him from taking his lawyer's oath. As a
result of the filing of these cases, the court, on February
29, 1972, resolved to hold in abeyance the respondent's
taking of the lawyer's oath together with two others, until
he is cleared of the charges against him
FACTS:
First Case:
In November 1966, Imelda filed a complaint for rape
against Tan. While the case was being heard therein, Tan
wooed complainant Bitangcor, promising to marry her,
believing him, did not any more attend subsequent
hearings thereon; hence, the rape case was dismissed.
Although the respondent did not fulfill his promise of
marriage, she continued her relationship with him; but
everytime complainant Bitangcor brought up the subject of
marriage, he always told to wait for his mother. In June,
1967, complainant Bitangcor confronted respondent about
her being pregnant; but the latter denied responsibility,
and has since then been avoiding her. A few years after she
gave birth to a child named Imelda Bitangcor Tan,
complainant Bitangcor sought respondent and reminded
him of his promise to marry her and sought support for
their child. Respondent refused to marry complainant
Bitangcor, but gave their child the minimal amounts of
P20, P25 and P50, after which he refused to provide for
their child. Complainant then filed a case on behalf of her
daughter Imelda, against respondent in the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of Manila. Said case, was still
pending when this case was filed. Bitangcor further alleged
that respondent does not deserve to be a lawyer.
SECOND CASE:
On or about August 1971, Tan courted petitioner Peredo,
promising to marry her after the bar examinations, and
because of such promise, she fell in love with him.
Sometime in September 1971, respondent seduced, lured,
coerced and employed many tactics on her to satisfy his
lust. Because of these acts and in order to avoid any
scandal, respondent promised to marry her after the 1971
bar examinations. She accepted the offer of marriage
because she was already abused and dishonored. In
consideration of such promise of marriage, they lived
together as husband and wife from September, 1971
continuously up to January, 1972 in a furnished apartment
in Manila, until respondent left for his hometown of
Malaybalay, Bukidnon, without fulfilling his promise of
marriage. The fact of her living with respondent without the
benefit of marriage has come to the knowledge of
complainant Peredo's family, relatives and friends, causing
her embarrassment, unnecesary shame, social humiliation
and besmirched reputation. Respondent's continued refusal
to marry her makes him undeserving to be a member of
the bar
In his answer to to Bitangcor's complaint admitted that
there was indeed a rape case filed against him in the City
Fiscal Office of Pasay; but the same was dismissed "for lack
of interest of complaining witness" because Bitangcor
honestly believed that the case will not prosper since she
voluntarily cohabited with him. He denied ever having
approached her for any settlement, nor has he ever
promised her marriage. He likewise denied paternity of the
child Imelda Bitangcor Tan, alleging that the only time he
had sexual relations with Bitangcor was on October 23,
1966, and since the child was born on December 26, 1967
or 14 months thereafter he cannot possibly be her father.
He also alleged that the petitions unfounded and meant to
harass him and to prevent him from exercising his chosen
profession.
to Peredo's complaint likewise denied the allegations
therein, stating that he met Peredo at a birthday
celebration in July, 1971 and they became good friends and
no more. He never courted Peredo nor were they ever
sweethearts. He had never seduced Peredo, as he was then
busy preparing for the bar examinations. They never lived
together as husband and wife, and respondent had never
done any immoral or illegal acts towards complainant
Peredo. The case must have been prompted by ill-will,
envy, or intention to injure
Bitangcor filed a motion to withdraw complaint and
to dismiss the case together with an affidavit of
desistance wherein she attests that after filing the case, she
realized that she is no longer interested in pursuing the
same as she believes that the respondent should be a
member of the Philippine Bar. She went for a settlement.
Henceforth, the hearing of this case proceeded only as to
complainant Peredo.
ISSUE: W/N Tan should not be allowed to be a
member of the Bar
RULING
Yes.
From all the circumstances, the inescapable
conclusion is that the respondent had fallen short of
the requisite morality for admission to the Bar
(Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court). He violated the
honor of, not one, but two women.
Be that as it may, We note that the years have
chastened respondent who appears to be contrite, as
shown by the two telegrams he sent to the Supreme
Court.
Ten years have gone by since the 1971 Bar examinations
which qualified respondent to be a lawyer, and nine
years since he was denied the privilege to practice his
profession. There appears to be no other indiscretion
attributed to him in the meanwhile.

In the same way, We hold that the respondent herein has

sufficiently suffered for his immoral conduct.

WHEREFORE, THE RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 29, 1972

IS HEREBY SET ASIDE, AND RESPONDENT RODOLFO M.
TAN IS HEREBY ALLOWED TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH.
XxXXX

The withdrawal of Bitangcor's complaint did not ipso facto

result in the dismissal of this case. It is obvious from the
foregoing pleading which was prepared by respondent
himself, that he and Bitangcor were sweethearts from 1965
to 1966 at which time he was about 22 to 23 years old.
They used to go out together to the movies, parks and
eating places, and had sex in a motel in October, 1966. A
rape case was filed one month thereafter in the City Fiscal's
Office in Pasay, which case was dismissed as a result of
complainant Bitangcor's failure to attend subsequent
hearings. The Court, cannot but give more credence to the
version of complainant Bitangcor in this case, that Emelda
(Imelda) Tan is the result of her amorous relations with
respondent.

Peredo Case: she first met respondent on July 31, 1971 at

the birthday celebration of a townmate and boardmate of
respondent. After several times of going out together they
become sweethearts.

She was again invited to have lunch with the respondent at

his apartment on August 29, 1971 where the respondent
gave her "hard wine" which caused her dizziness and
vomitting, 'That night the respondent took her to the room
by force and succeeded in having carnal intercourse with
her. Her resistance was overcome by his strength.
Subsequently, he assured her that if something happened,
he was going to marry her. In their subsequent
conversation, he promised to marry her after the 1971 Bar
examinations, which she had to accept because she was
already disgraced. That first intercourse was followed by
many others, about 2 to 3 times a week, as the respondent
usually fetched her to bring her to his apartment.

September, 1971 they lived together as husband and wife

in his apartment, up to the time the respondent left for his
hometown in January 1972. When she reminded him of his
promise of marriage after the Bar examinations, he
answered that he was still financially unstable, but will
marry her in the early part of January. But when January
came he went home to Malaybalay, Bukidnon. She saw him
off with friends at the airport He promised to come back in
April. But when he returned in April, he informed her that
he was already married. When she reminded him about his
promise, respondent reasoned out that he was forced
("napasubo") to marry somebody else in the province
because she was already three [3] months pregnant
FRANCISCO LORENZANA, Complainant, v. ATTY. CESAR G. Fajardo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
G. FAJARDO, Respondent. law for a period of six (6) months effective from notice
June 29, 2005 and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that any repetition
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Francisco Lorenzana, complainant, charges respondent
Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo with violation of the Civil Service Law
and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
seeks his disbarment from the practice of the law
profession.

FACTS:

complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as

Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila,
until his retirement was a member of the People's Law
Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, receiving a
monthly honorarium of P4,000.00.1 He was also a member
of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches
Proper, also receiving a monthly allowance/ honorarium.

alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice

of law, receiving acceptance fees ranging from P20,000.00
to P50,000.00. He lives in a house and lot owned by
complainant's family without paying any rental and refuses
to leave the place despite the latter's demands.

respondent countered that his membership in the PLEB of

Quezon City, representing the NGO, was without fixed
compensation. He reported only once a week in the
afternoon for which he received only per diems allowed
under Section 43 par. (c) of Republic Act No. 6975.3 As
regards his designation as a member of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, the same is authorized under Section 406
of the Local Government Code of 1991; and his monthly
allowance/honorarium is allowed under Section 393.

the same is authorized by law. Hence, there was no double

compensation. He admitted having appeared as private
counsel in several cases. However, his clients were his
relatives and friends, among them were complainant's
father and brother Ricardo. He emphasized that his services
were pro bono.

Respondent denied that the lot on which his house is built

belongs to complainant's family. In fact, it is now the
subject of an "Accion Publiciana" filed against him by one
Dionisio delos Reyes before RTC.

referred the complaint to the (IBP) for investigation, report

and recommendation.

ISSUE: W/N Fajardo violated the constitution and Statue by

accepting employment as member of PLEB while employed
as a Legal Officer V and from.

RULING: YES. WHEREFORE, for accepting employment

as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City while
concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila
Urban Settlement Office, in violation of the Constitution
and the statutes, which in turn contravene his
Attorney's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility;
and by engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty. Cesar
ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLANDO S. TORRES, Respondent.
April 14, 2004
PER CURIAM:

complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty.

Rolando S. Torres with presentation of false testimony;
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against,
the forgery of complainants signature in a purported Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in
court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby
violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and
judicial ethics.

FACTS:
The complainant is one of the six children of the late
spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting. Her siblings are
Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T. Torres,
who is married to herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and
Eliseo Ting. Their parents diedintestate and left several
parcels of land