1.

In Re Carlos Basa | December 1920

“Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals”

Facts:

Carlos Basa is a member of the Philippine Bar and of California. Later, he was charged and
convicted of the crime of abduction with consent before and by the CFI Manila, which was
ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General now asks for the disbarment of
Basa for being convicted of a crime, which the former alleges that it is a crime involving moral
turpitude.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of abduction with consent involves moral turpitude (What is
moral turpitude?)

RULING:

Moral turpitude includes everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.

Although no decision can be found which has decided the exact question, it cannot admit of
doubt that crimes of this character involve moral turpitude. The inherent nature of the act is such
that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct.

But after evaluation of the circumstances of the case, SC deemed it proper that beginning
with the day when Basa shall be discharged from prison, he shall be suspended from his office of
lawyer for one year.
2. RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE
139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN
April 24, 2012. A.C. No. 7940.

“MORAL TURPITUDE”

FACTS:

Atty. Pactolin filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against City Treasurer
Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of P10,000.00 in public funds. Atty Pactolin attached
to the complaint of what he claimed to be a falsified letter of Abastillas, which showed that it
was Ferraren, and not Mayor Fuentes who should properly approved the disbursement. Thus,
Ferraren filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal case for falsification of public document
against Atty. Pactolin. Atty Pactolin was later on convicted for the crime charged, which
attained finality.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgement of
the crime of falsification.

RULING:YES!

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or
suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in
office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to
do.

This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to
justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude
includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It
involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.

As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most
severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in
clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar. Yet this Court has also consistently pronounced
that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude..

Here, Atty. Pactolin’s disbarment is warranted. The Sandiganbayan has confirmed that
although his culpability for falsification has been indubitably established, he has not yet
served his sentence. His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short
of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.

3. TERESITA P. FAJARDO vs. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ

April 20, 2016 A.C. No. 9018.

Unauthorized practice of law; Conflict of interest; Lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or
penalized unless it is shown that they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties,
which reflects on their fitness to enjoy continued status as a member of the bar; Lawyer’s
Oath

FACTS:

Complainant Teresita was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She
hired Atty. Alvarez (employee of the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health) to
handle several cases filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Alvarez
assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who could
help for the dismissal of cases against her. He asked for P1.4M acceptance fee. To all of
these Teresita acceded and paid. However, the Ombudsman later issued a resolution against
Teresita. Teresita demanded the return of the amount she paid, but Atty. Alvarez refused to
heed. Thus the filing of this admin case for disbarment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent is authorized to engage in the private practice of

law
2. Whether or not disbarment of Atty. Alvarez is warranted
3. Whether or not there is violation of Lawyer’s Oath
RULING:

1. YES. Although there has been an authorization to practice private profession as

claimed by respondent, there is a provision in the same that his private practice is allowed as
long as it will not run in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine Government
as a whole. Respondent although he did not made (signed) any pleading, practiced law. Not
only did he do unauthorized practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle
influence in the Office of the Ombudsman. By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal
advice to complainant, respondent practiced law.

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for
Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative
Order No. 21, Series of 1999. However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit
against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest. Respondent’s practice of profession was expressly and
impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be “in conflict with the
interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole.”

There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee of

government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the
Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same employer he swore to serve.

Thus, a conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee represents

another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Furthermore, this is consistent with the constitutional directive that “[p]ublic
officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the [P]eople, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.

2. NO. In disbarment or disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the complainant must
prove his or her allegations through substantial evidence. As a basic rule in evidence, the
burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. In the case at bar, complainant
miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or
allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.

Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown that
they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on their fitness to
enjoy continued status as a member of the bar:
 “The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of
misconduct which seriously effect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the Bar.”

3. YES. we find that respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it
appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who
could help them get a favorable decision in complainant’s case.

Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the practice
of their profession. Respondent violated the oath he took when he proposed to gain a
favorable outcome for complainant’s case by resorting to his influence among staff in
the Office where the case was pending.

The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special
treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of
improper behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar.
Respondent is duty bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be
seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s faith in the
judicial process is diluted.
 4. VALENTIN C. MIRANDA vs. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO
September 26, 2011 A.C. No. 6281.

“Attorney’s Fees and Attorney’s Lien; Quantum meruit; Ethical conduct expected of attorneys”

FACTS:

Complainant is the petitioner in a Land Registration Petition for the registration of a

property owned by him and his siblings. He later sought the services of respondent as
counsel. Complainant agreed to respondent’s acceptance fee and appearance fee and paid
for the same. However, during the last hearing of the case, r espondent demanded the
additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a
memorandum, which he said would further strengthen complainant’s position in the
case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the subject property as additional
fees for his services. Complainant refused to comply with respondent’s demand, thus,
when the owner’s duplicate of title was available for claiming by complainant,
respondent claimed it first before the RD and insisted that he will only release the title
to the complainant upon payment of the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the
property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for which, respondent would
deliver the owner’s duplicate of the OCT. due to staunch refusal of complainant to his
demands, respondent registered an adverse claim on the OCT. Hence, this disbarment
complaint.

ISSUE: Were the acts of respondent justified?

RULING: NO!

Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides for the attorney’s
lien. An attorney’s retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following
elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client’s
funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees. Further, the
attorney’s retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the account between the
attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and funds of the client which
may come into the attorney’s possession in the course of his employment.

In the present case, complainant claims that there is no such agreement for the
payment of professional fee consisting of 20% of e total area of the subject property
and submits that their agreement was only for the payment of the acceptance fee and
the appearance fees.
 As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no proof of any agreement
between the complainant and the respondent that the latter is entitled to an additional
professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area covered by OCT No. 0-94. The
agreement between the parties only shows that respondent will be paid the acceptance
fee and the appearance fees, which the respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is
no unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees that would entitle respondent to retain his
client’s property. Hence, respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client
absence a clear and justifiable claim.

Respondent’s further submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional

professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no merit. The
principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed
upon for his services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits
for his services, as much as he has earned. In the present case, the parties had already
entered into an agreement as to the attorney’s fees of the respondent, and thus, the
principle of quantum meruit does not fully find application because the respondent is
already compensated by such agreement.

Respondent’s unjustified act of holding on to complainant’s title with the obvious

aim of forcing complainant to agree to the amount of attorney’s fees sought is an
alarming abuse by respondent of the exercise of an attorney’s retaining lien, which by
no means is an absolute right, and cannot at all justify inordinate delay in the delivery
of money and property to his client when due or upon demand. A lawyer must conduct
himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is
beyond reproach.

His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of
good faith and fairness. Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by
unlawfully withholding and failing to deliver the title of the complainant, despite
repeated demands, in the guise of an alleged entitlement to additional professional
fees. Therefore, he is suspended for 6 months and is ordered to return the OCT to
complainant.