Fernandez v. Grecia AC no. 3694 assist in the canvassing.

They claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court held that on the basis of the evidence could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.
FACTS: Fernandez sought the disbarment of Atty. Grecia for dishonesty and presented before Judge Bernad, the Court is convinced that the charge against
grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chart Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves' The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which this matter had been referred,
which was material evidence in a damage suit. Actually, Atty. Grecia he was medical chart and passing them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a
previously disbarred for his immoral complicity or "unholy alliance" with a judge in the Rules of Professional Responsibility as well as canon 7 thereof which provide motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed petition before this
Quezon City. However, three years later, the Court, heeding his pleas for that: Canon 1. . . . Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, Court.
compassions and his promise to mend his ways, reinstated him in the profession. immoral and deceitful conduct. Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
But here comes the present case, eight months later. Fe Linda Aves was seven integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Issue: ​Whether or not respondents were guilty of misconduct and violation of the
(7) months pregnant when she was admitted as a patient at St. Luke's Hospital. Integrated Bar. By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia lawyer’s oath.
has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral
She was diagnosed with mild pre-eclampsia and was subsequently discharged. unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has Holding: What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the
However, she was rushed back to the hospital the next day and unfortunately died forfeited his membership in the BAR. GUILTY of grave misconduct, dishonesty tabulation of votes per precinct but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of
with her unborn child. Damaso Aves sought for damages against the hospital and and gross unethical behavior. DISBARRED. certain senatorial candidates at the expense of petitioner in complete disregard of
the attending doctors for damages. His counsel was Atty. Grecia. The medical the tabulation in the election returns. Despite the fact that these discrepancies,
records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court by St. Luke's, as requested by ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again. especially the double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation
Attorney Grecia. The records were entrusted to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC, were apparent on the
Avelina Robles. On July 16, 1991, between 8:30-9:00 o' clock in the morning, HELD: Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, face of these documents and that the variation involves substantial number of
upon arriving in court for another hearing of the case,Attorney Grecia borrowed he should not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A votes, respondents nevertheless certified the SoVs as true and correct. Their acts
from Mrs. Robles the folder containing the medical records of Mrs. Aves. lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and constitute misconduct. As a lawyer who holds a government position may not be
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as
Grecia surreptitiously tore off two (2) pages of the medical records. Robles and a is “like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice”. a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the
clerk named Sandico saw the act. Sandico even saw Atty. Grecia turn over the Considering that this is his second offense, an incorrigible practitioner of “dirty Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or is of such character as
crumpled pages to a man waiting outside the building. Sandico and Robles tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of “an instrument to to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
reported such to Judge Capulong. Judge Capulong told Sandico to bring the man advance the ends of justice.” By descending to the level of a common thief, individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. In this
to her chamber. On the way back to chamber, Judge Capulong saw the plaintiff, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has case, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents
Attorney Damaso Aves, and St. Luke's counsel, Attorney Melanie Limson. She demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall
requested them to come to her office. Judge Capulong confronted the man and fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR. not engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By express
ordered him to give her the papers which Grecia had passed on to him. The man provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government
at first denied that he had the papers in his possession but subsequently turned Pimentel Jr. v. Llorente and Salayon service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to "do no
them over. Judge Capulong then directed the Valenzuela Police to find out who falsehood." The above committed acts would have merited suspension were it not
the man was. The man was known to be Sid, the driver of Atty. Grecia. However, Facts: ​Petitioner, Aquilino Pimentel who was then running for Senator in the 1995 for the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and in the case of
Atty. Grecia denied such. Because of due stress to her and her court officials, elections filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente Salayon, after a long public service. Under, the circumstances the Court find
Judge Capulong inhibited from the case. Judge Bernad took over. On August 20, and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation respondents guilty of misconduct and imposes on each of them a fine in the
1991, St. Luke's failed this disbarment case against Grecia. of the lawyer's oath. This is in connection with the discharge of their duties as amount of P10,000.00 with a warning that commission of similar acts will be dealt
members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers. Salayon, then election officer of with more severely.
At the investigation of the case by Judge Bernad, Damaso Aves, the surviving the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of said
spouse of the late Fe Linda Aves and testified that it was Attorney Bu Castro, Board, while Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex Constantino v. Saludares
counsel of the defendants who lifted two pages from the medical folder and oficio vice-chairman as provided by law.
planted such evidence to frame up Atty. Grecia. Atty. Grecia corroborated such FACTS: Constantino charges Atty. Saludares of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
and even added that he has no driver and the police investigator fabricated such Petitioner alleges that, in violation of R.A. No. 6646, §27(b), respondents tampered for the non-payment of a loan which the latter obtained from the former’s son. Atty.
information. However, Judge Bernad found the court employee, Maria Arnie with the votes received by him, through illegal padding. He maintains that, by Saludares borrowed money in the amount of P1,000.00 from Constantino’s son
Sandico, and Acting branch Clerk of Court Avelina Robles entirely credible and signing the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despite Luis, Jr. Atty. Saludares procured the loan purportedly for an urgent personal
"without any noticeable guile nor attempt at fabrication. The missing pages respondents' knowledge that some of the entries therein were false, the latter obligation. He failed to comply with his promise. Subsequent demands for
showed that after Mrs. Aves was readmitted to the hospital, the doctors were able committed a serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers' oath. payment were then made by Luis, Jr. but to no avail. Luis, Jr. left the country and
to stabilize her blood pressure with a normal reading of 120/80. afterwards wrote his father, authorizing the latter to collect the sum of money but
Respondents denied the allegations and alleged that the preparation of the SoVs again to no avail. Constantino then sought assistance from the Civil Relations
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Grecia was guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct was made by the canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to Office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) through an affidavit-complaint.
The Civil Relations Office in turn endorsed the affidavit-complaint to this Court.
Atty. Saludares averred that the complaint was without basis and malicious in
nature. He however, categorically admits having borrowed money from
complainant's son, Luis, Jr. He reasons out that he was unable to repay the loan
because Luis, Jr. failed to appear at the appointed place of the payment. The case
was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Ruling: ​Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law recommendation of the CBD and sent their resolution to the Supreme Court for
with a warning that another infraction will be dealt with more severely. Citing review.
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also known as the Notarial law, the Supreme
Court explained the importance of adherence to said law as part of the ISSUES:
responsibility of a duly deputized authority to conduct such notarial process. Due
diligence is to be observed, this being part of a lawyers professional responsibility 1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon
and procedural lapse is not an excuse to cater to the convenience of clients. involved moral turpitude.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Saludares was guilty of conduct unbecoming of a Any violation is tantamount to misconduct. Such misconduct is a ground for 2. Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment.
lawyer. disbarment as stated by the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed the primordial responsibility of lawyers HELD:
RULING: Yes. Atty’s Saludares’s conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well to obey the constitution and laws of the land as stated in Canon I of the Code of
of a member of the Bar. The Supreme Court held that by Atty. Saludares’s failure Professional Responsibility. Any deviation from such is violative of the lawyers’ 1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of
to present convincing evidence to justify his non-payment of the debt, not to oath and the duty they have subscribed into. frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. The court
mention his seeming indifference to the complaint brought against him made defined moral turpitude as “everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty,
apparent by his unreasonable absence from the proceedings before the Solicitor Being his first Administrative offense, he was only suspended for six months. The or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
General, respondent failed to demonstrate that he still possessed the integrity and act of a notary public is impressed with public interest. Notarized documents are duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
morality demanded of a member of the Bar. ascribed with full confidence by the Courts and the general public. To countenance justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude was shown when Atty.
these irregular acts would endanger the full faith and credit given upon its face and Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason. His act definitely did not constitute
Granting arguendo that he failed to meet Luis, Jr. at the appointed place of would undermine the evidentiary weight given to it by the Courts to assure the self-defense. It was he who was the aggressor because he first tried to punch
payment, respondent does not deny the fact that he has refused and still refuses public of its authenticity. Soriano. The latter was merely defending himself when he counterpunched Dizon.
to repay the P1,000.00 loan despite repeated demands. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with treachery when he shot Soriano when
Professional Responsibility clearly provides that a lawyer must not engage in Roberto Soriano v. Atty. Emmanuel Dizon the latter was not in a position to defend himself. Soriano was handing Dizon’s
unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer can do honor to the legal eyeglasses, which he just picked up, when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon tried
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts FACTS: Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor when to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in handkerchief in order
and to his clients. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important that along Abanao Street, Baguio City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon not to leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a simple traffic
truthfulness and candor. tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver, and held incident indicated his skewed morals.
him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open his door, causing
SUSPENDED for 3 months Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help Dizon get up, but the latter was 2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of
about to punch him so Soriano punched Dizon first to fend off an impending Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the
Arrieta v. Llosa attack. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
his car and got his revolver with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. processes.” Dizon failed to obey the laws of the land through his illegal possession
Facts: Arrieta filed a petition for disbarment upon the ground that Atty. Llosa of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through his unjust
notarized an Absolute Deed of Sale knowing that some who were parties to it were As Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up from the refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his probation.
dead. The vendors in the instant deed were dead when Llosa affixed his signature pavement, Dizon fired and shot him. Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and
on the notarized document. Later on, complainant moved to dismiss the complaint the latter merely pushed him out and sped off. The bullet hit Soriano’s neck and Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
as a product of his misapprehension of the facts. The Investigating Commissioner lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated him, he would provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) followed by the Board of the have died if not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s violation was exhibited when he tried to reach an
Governors of the IBP recommended the dismissal of the case finding no injury causing the left side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling him for his job as out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed,
compelling reason to continue with the disbarment proceedings. The Court did not a taxi driver. he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to get a referral to a
agree however. Llosa contends that he merely notarized the sale for expediency neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two
because it was urgent. Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed probation, other persons who mauled him. According to the three doctors who examined
conditioned on payment of civil liabilities. However, four years after judgment was Dizon, his injuries were so minor that his allegation was so improbable. The court
Issue: ​Whether or not Llosa should be disbarred on account of violation of his rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil obligation. Soriano filed complaint ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly
lawyer’s oath by notarizing a document knowing that the vendors of the Absolute before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s disbarment. The showed his unfitness to continue as a member of the bar.
Deed of Sale at that time when he notarized it were dead. Commissioner of the CBD recommended that respondent be disbarred for having
been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Membership in the legal profession is a privilege demanding a high degree of good
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the moral character, which is not only a condition precedent to admission, but also a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when
any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting
out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every
lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.
Cecilio A. Agno v. Atty. Marciano Cagatan AC 4515
Facts​: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Cecilia A. Agno against
respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The record shows that respondent was the President of
International Services Recruitment Corporation (ISRC), a corporation engaged in
the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas employment. On July 12, 1988,
ISRC's recruitment license was cancelled by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) for violation of labor law provisions and subsequently, on
August 9, 1988, ISRC was forever banned from participating in overseas
recruitment.1 cra On Sepetember 19, 1988, the respondent appealed the DOLE's
cancellation of ISRC's license with the Office of the President.
The appeal was resolved by the said office in respondent's favor in the Resolution
dated March 30, 19932 which set aside the order of cancellation and directed both
the DOLE and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to renew the
recruitment license of ISRC subject to the payment of a guarantee bond which
was double the amount required by law. Since ISRC's recruitment license had
already expired on September 17, 1989, ISRC filed on April 12, 1994, an
application for renewal of its recruitment license with the POEA.
However, during the pendency of the aforementioned appeal with the Office of the
President, particularly on August 9, 1992, the respondent entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement4 with a United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) national, Mr.
Khalifa H. Juma,5 the husband of herein complainant, Cecilia A. Agno. On
December 26, 1995, which was more than three (3) years after the execution of
the aforesaid agreement, a Complaint-Affidavit6 for disbarment was filed with this
Court by the complainant against the respondent claiming that the latter used
fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, in enticing her husband, Khalifa, to join ISRC
and invest therein the amount of P500,000.00 and that although the respondent
received the aforesaid amount, the complainant learned from her inquiries with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the POEA that the respondent
failed to comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. The
complainant found out that the said Memorandum of Agreement could not be
validated without the approval of the Board of Directors of ISRC. While respondent
even had the complainant sign an affidavit stating that she was then the acting
Treasurer of ISRC, her appointment as Treasurer was not submitted to the SEC.
The records of the SEC showed that the Board of Directors, officers and
stockholders of ISRC remained unchanged and her name and that of her husband
did not appear as officers and/or stockholders thereof.
From the POEA, on the other hand, the complainant learned that ISRC's repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty; and ordered
recruitment license was yet to be reinstated. The complainant claimed that to RESTITUTE the amount of P500,000.00 to the complainant.
respondent used for his own personal benefit the P500,000.00 that she and her A lawyer who paid another with a personal check from a bank account which he
husband invested in ISRC. When she demanded that respondent return the said knew has already been closed exhibited an extremely low regard to his
sum of money, respondent issued a bank check dated March 30, 19947 in favor of commitment to the oath he took when he joined his peers, thereby seriously
the complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 which was dishonored for being tarnishing the image of the profession which he should hold in high esteem. -
drawn against a closed account. Despite repeated demands by complainant, the (Cecilia A. Agno vs. Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14, 2008)
respondent failed to settle his obligation or redeem his dishonored check,
prompting the complainant to file a case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
against the respondent. An information was filed before the Municipal Trial Court
of Cainta, Rizal, charging the respondent with the said offense and a warrant of
arrest was issued against respondent after the latter failed several times to attend
his arraignment.
The complainant prayed for the disbarment of the respondent for issuing a
bouncing check and for his act of dishonesty in assuring her and her husband that
the Memorandum of Agreement would suffice to install them as stockholders and
officers of ISRC which induced them to invest in said corporation the amount of
P500,000.00. The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, held several hearings, the last of which was
on November 13, 2003. Eventually, on October 12, 2004, Commissioner San Juan
submitted her Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Commissioner's
recommendation: cra:nad Given all the foregoing, it is submitted that respondent
manifested lack of candor, when he knowingly failed to provide the complainant
with accurate and complete information due her under the circumstances. It is
respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of
law in the maximum period prescribed by law and to return the money received
from the complainant.
On October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No.
XVII-2005- 10216 adopting and approving, with modification, the afore-quoted
report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner.
Issue​: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law
 
Ruling​: In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that respondent has violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility as well as his attorney's oath. The Code of
Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following : cra:nad Canon 1.
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 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 shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan is SUSPENDED FOR ONE
(1) YEAR and ONE (1) MONTH from the practice of law with warning that