LEGAL COUNSELING

10 Disbarment cases of lawyers based on various issues

THERESE ZSA R. TORRES

J.D. IV
 KENNETH R. MARIANO vs ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI
A.C. No. 11978 September 25, 2018

Facts:
Kenneth R. Mariano (Mariano) approached and engaged the services of Atty. Laki for the
filing of a petition for annulment of the latter’s marriage. Atty. Laki then asked from Mariano a
total of Php 160,000.00, representing a package deal for the former’s professional fee, docket fee
and expenses for the preparation and filing of the petition, subject to an advance payment of Php
50,000.00. Mariano expressed his concern over the said amount but was persuaded by Atty.
Laki’s assurances, specifically how the latter assured him that he could secure a favorable
decision even without Mariano's personal appearance since he will file the petition for annulment
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac which is presided by a "friendly judge" and is
known to be receptive to annulment cases. Believing in Atty. Laki's assurances, Mariano initially
paid Atty. Laki the amount of Php 50,000.00.
Upon Atty. Laki's relentless follow-ups to pay the remaining balance, Mariano made the
succeeding payments in the amounts of P40,000.00 and P60,000.00, respectively. Almost a year
thereafter, Mariano followed up with Atty. Laki the status of the petition. He then discovered that
the petition has yet to be filed. Atty. Laki told him that the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Tarlac
where he allegedly filed the petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus, he decided
to withdraw the case since he did not expect the new presiding judge to be "friendly." After
several failed attempts to contact and meet Atty. Laki, Mariano then decided to demand for the
return of the money he gave. Despite Mariano's demand to Atty. Laki to return his money, his
demands were left unheeded. Atty. Laki promised Mariano that he would return the money in
installments within two weeks because he still has to raise it, but Atty. Laki failed to make good
of his promise. Later, Mariano's succeeding phone calls were rejected. Mariano also alleged that
Atty. Laki's office in Guagua, Pampanga, was always closed. Aggrieved, Mariano filed a
disbarment case against Atty. Laki. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Laki be disbarred.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Laki should be disbarred.

HELD:
Yes. It must be emphasized anew that the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the
counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
collected or received for or from his client. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was
spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the
client. Atty. Laki's failure to render an accounting, and to return the money if the intended
purpose thereof did not materialize, constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.
Moreover, Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, while Rule 11.04 states
that a lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case. Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano that he can secure a
favorable decision without the latter's personal appearance because the petition will be filed in
the RTC of Tarlac, which is allegedly presided by a "friendly" judge receptive to annulment
cases give the implication that a favorable decision can be obtained merely on the basis of close
ties with the judge and not necessarily on the merits. Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast
doubts on the integrity of the courts in the eyes of the public. By making false representation to
his client, Atty. Laki not only betrayed his client's trust but he also undermined the trust and faith
of the public in the legal profession.
Advice:
In the instant case, first, Atty. Laki received money from his client for the purpose of
filing a petition but he failed to do so; second, after his failure to render legal service despite the
receipt of acceptance fee, he also unjustifiably refused to return the money he received; third, he
grossly disrespected the IBP by ignoring its directives to file his answer to the complaint and
appear at the mandatory hearings; and lastly, Atty. Laki maligned the Judiciary by giving the
impression that court cases are won, not on the merits, but through close ties with the judges.
From these actuations, it is undisputed that Atty. Laki wronged his client and the Judiciary as an
institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. He disregarded his duties as a lawyer and
betrayed the trust of his client, the IBP, and the courts.
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the court. In this case, Atty. Laki
compromised the integrity of the judiciary by insinuating that he can influence a court and judge
to cooperate with them to ensure the annulment of complainant’s marriage which is a clear
violation of Canon 7.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives
rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. As respondent obviously did
nothing on the case of complainant, the amount she had given—as evidenced by the receipt
issued by his law office—was never applied to the filing fee. His failure to return her money
upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his own use and thereby
betrayed the trust she had reposed in him. His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of
professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
The Code demands from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the
courts, but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys
entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. Respondent clearly fell short of the
demands required of him as a member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to
his client makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal profession, and
to the general public. Given the crucial importance of his role in the administration of justice, his
misconduct diminished the confidence of the public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.
 TORBEN B. OVERGAARD vs. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ
A.C. No. 7902, March 31, 2009

Facts:
The predicament of respondent arose when complainant, Torben Overgaard engaged
respondent's services as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against
him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of P900,000.00 as stipulated in a
Retainer Agreement, the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under their
contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s request for a report of the status of the
cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the complainant’s demands for the return of the money
paid to him. In his answer respondent alleged that he abruptly left his office in Makati because
his life was in danger. It is because of this reason that he did not received the notice sent by the
IBP. If he received the notice he would have filed his answer and comment on time.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Valdez should be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without
making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly attended to during his
absence, and without making arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the
respondent is clearly guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon
his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even
assuming that there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to
desert his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least
exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he
was handling were attended to and that his client’s interest was safeguarded. If it was not
possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have informed the
complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable
the client to engage the services of another counsel who could properly represent him.
Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared, deserted his client and forgot about the cases
entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage and prejudice."
Moreover, "the respondent’s disbarment is not anchored on his failure to do anything in
relation the cases entrusted to his care, but on his abandonment of his client. He will not be
absolved from liability on the basis alone of these inconsequential acts which he claims to have
accomplished because the glaring fact remains that he has failed to perform his essential
obligations to his client, to the courts and to society. As the complainant’s lawyer, the respondent
is expected to serve his client with competence and diligence. This includes not merely
reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and giving the complainant sound legal advice, but also
properly representing his client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing
required pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to his care with reasonable dispatch, and
urging their termination without waiting for his client or the court to prod him to do so. He
should not idly sit by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.
The respondent’s acts and omissions were not just a case of inaction, but they amount to
deceitful conduct and are contrary to good morals. After assuring the complainant that he would
protect the latter’s interest and attend to the cases included in the Retainer Agreement, he
abandoned his client. It was only after the complainant’s own inquiry that he discovered that the
respondent never appeared in court to represent the complainant in the cases filed against him, so
much so that he had no knowledge that warrants of arrest were already issued against him.
The respondent also failed to enter his appearance in the civil case for Mandamus,
Injunction and Damages that the complainant filed. After receiving the complete amount of legal
fees, giving the complainant initial legal advice, and interviewing some witnesses, the
respondent just disappeared and the complainant never heard from him despite his continued
efforts to contact the respondent."
Finally, "We must emphasize that the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional
right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise, and it may be extended or withheld by this
Court in the exercise of its sound discretion. As guardian of the legal profession, this Court has
ultimate disciplinary power over members of the Bar in order to ensure that the highest standards
of competence and of honesty and fair dealing are maintained. We find that the respondent has
fallen below such exacting standard and is unworthy of the privilege to practice law. "
Advice:
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby contracts that he will exert all effort for
its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of
professional ethics.
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client,
but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Further, among the fundamental
rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.
A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without
reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although the cause of
his abrupt abandonment of his relationship with his client is reasonable, there must have been
notice to the latter within a reasonable period, to which the lawyer involved failed to do. Any
dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client.
 ROSAURA P. CORDON vs JESUS BALICANTA
AC No. 2797, Oct. 4, 2002

Facts:
Complainant Rosauro Cordon, the widow of Felixberto Jaldon, inherited properties which
amounted to 21 parcels of land. The lawyer who helped her settle the estate of her late husband
was respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta.
Respondent enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that would
develop the said real properties into a high-scale commercial complex with a beautiful penthouse
for complainant, which led to the establishment of Rosaura Enterprises. Balicanta was
simultaneously the President/General Manager/Treasurer. He made them sign a document which
turned out to be a voting trust agreement plus an SPA to sell and mortgage some of the parcels of
land which he transferred the titles of to a certain Tion Suy Ong. Respondent never accounted for
the proceeds of said transfers. Using a spurious board resolution, he obtained a loan from Land
bank in the amount of 2.22M php secured by 9 of the parcels of land. The respondent ostensibly
intended to use the money to construct the Baliwasan Commercial Center (BCC, for brevity).
Complainant later on found out that the structure was made of poor materials such as sawali,
coco lumber and bamboo which could not have cost the corporation anything close to the amount
of the loan secured. He failed to pay a single installment on the loan and therefore LBP
foreclosed. He did not attempt to redeem, and sold the rights to redeem said property.
Complainant’s daughter discovered that their ancestral home had been demolished and
that her mother was detained in a small nipa hut. With the help of an attorney Lim she found her
mother. They terminated respondent’s services and threatened him with legal action.

Issue: Whether respondent should be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on the
legal profession. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means
to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him in trust by complainant and her
daughter.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society,
the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes
(Canon 1). Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct (Rule 1.01). If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its
basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should
also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, 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. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon
admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, 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.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer “to hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.” He is bound “to account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client.” The relation between an attorney
and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound to promptly account for
money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct.
Advice:

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court.
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal source of ethical rules
for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides: “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his possession.” Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of
acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting
gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character,
and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Such conduct on the part of
respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He
violated the Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in
their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach. Respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession.
He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful
and grossly immoral acts.
The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The
bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing.
Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done
by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of
the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. Here, respondent chose to
forget that by swearing the lawyer’s oath, he became a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and
an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice—a vital function of
democracy a failure of which is disastrous to society.
 HDI HOLDINGS PHILIPPINES, INC. vs ATTY. EMMANUEL N. CRUZ
A.C. No. 11724, July 31, 2018

Facts:
HDI retained the services of Atty. Cruz as its in-house corporate counsel and corporate
secretary. However, HDI averred that through Atty. Cruz's deception and machinations, he
managed to misappropriate a total of Forty-One Million Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand
One Hundred Sixty-Seven and Eighteen Centavos (P41,317,167.18), in the following manner, to
wit:
(a) Misappropriation of the cash bid in the total amount of P6,000,000.00 which remains
unpaid;
(b) Contracting unsecured personal loans with HDI in the total amount of P8,000,000.00
which remains unpaid;
(c) Deceiving HDI as to the true selling price of the Q.C. property which resulted in
overpayment in the amount of P1, 689,100.00 which remains unpaid;
(d) Fabricating a fictitious sale by executing a fictitious contract to sell and deed of sale
in order to obtain money in the amount of P21,250,000.00 from HDI which remains
unpaid;
(e) Collecting rental payments amounting to P4, 408,067.18, without authority, and
thereafter, failed to turn over the same to HDI; and
(f) Executing a fake Secretary’s Certificate appointing himself as the authorized person
to receive the payments of the lease rentals.

Upon discovery, HDI confronted Atty. Cruz. The latter went to HDI's office where he broke
down and admitted to everything. However, even after several demand letters, he failed to return
the misappropriated money. Consequently, HDI filed a disbarment case against Atty. Cruz.
Atty. Cruz failed to file his Answer on the complaint against him. Also, during the mandatory
conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), only the counsel for HDI
appeared. Thus, IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Cruz be disbarred from the practice of law.
Thereafter, IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Cruz should be disbarred?

Held:
YES, he violated the following rules:
1. Rule 1.0 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 2. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
3. Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those others kept by him.
4. Canon. 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling/or the client.
5. 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.

That being said, the Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to pay just debts
constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned. Finally, Atty. Cruz's
indifference to the IBP's directives to tile his comment on the allegations against him cannot be
countenanced. He disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons and
notices. Atty. Cruz's act of not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the
Investigating Commissioner, despite due notice, further aggravated his already disgraceful
attitude. However, insofar as the return of the misappropriated money, the same should be
qualified. As to the money which Atty. Cruz borrowed as personal loan, the Court cannot order
him to return the money the borrowed from complainant in his private capacity.
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court
is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. However, insofar as the money
received by Atty. Cruz from HDI, in his professional capacity, to wit: P6,000,000.00,
representing the total amount released for bidding; P21,250,000.00, representing the total amount
released for the purported purchase of a property which turned out to be fictitious;P4,408,067.18
representing the unremitted rentals from Petron, and P1,689,100.00 representing the
overpayment in the overpriced Q.C. property, these amounts should be returned as it was borne
out of their professional relationship.
The Court find respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL CRUZ, guilty of gross misconduct by
violating the Canon of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct, and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law
and his name stricken off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Advice:

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his
possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer
for a specific purpose, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The
lawyer’s failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he
has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a
lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
His misrepresentations in order to compel HDI to release money for cash bids, fictitious
purchase of a property, the overpriced purchase price of the Q.C. property and his
misrepresentation that he had authority to collect rentals in behalf of HDI and CGI, as well as his
execution of fictitious documents to give semblance of truth to his misrepresentations, constitute
grave violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These reprehensible conduct of Atty. Cruz
without doubt breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients.
Good moral character is necessary for a lawyer to practice the profession. An attorney is
expected not only to be professionally competent, but to also have moral integrity. Deceit and
lack of accountability and integrity reflect on his ability to perform his functions as a lawyer,
who is always expected to act and appear to act lawfully and honestly, and must uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Atty. Cruz failed in these respects as a lawyer.
Atty. Cruz's failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of
the trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
 Atty. Oscar Embido et al vs Atty. Salvador N. Pe Jr., et.al.,
AM No. 6732,, October 22, 2013

Facts:
Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya received two written communications from Mr. Ballam Delaney
Hunt. The letter requested a copy of the decision dated February 12, 1997 rendered by Judge
Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo. Judge Penuela
instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of Special Proceedings Case No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. It was then
discovered that the RTC had no record of Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo
was the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special
Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando
Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria. Informed that the requested decision and
case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt sent a letter attaching a machine copy of the purported
decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna that had been presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK.
After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the document attached to the
October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise
him of the situation. The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to
communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI, triggering the investigation of the
falsification. Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an affidavit wherein he stated
that it was the respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special
Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey
Laserna for a fee of P60,000.00. The allegations against the respondent were substantially
corroborated by Mary Rose Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo. The NBI invited the respondent
to explain his side but he invoked his constitutional right to remain silent.

Issue: Whether or not Pe should be disbarred.

Held:
YES. In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave
misconduct for having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court
proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should
uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that “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.”
 Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not
to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Gross immorality,
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer’s
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the
court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his
part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given the
purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a
person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar. It then becomes
timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing that may in any
way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity and integrity.
The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among them
who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorney’s Oath. No
lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a
privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny
the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of ethical
conduct in his professional and private capacities.
Advice:
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should
uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that "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." Lawyers are further required by Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and
immoral or deceitful conduct.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is
always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw
or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons
of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended
from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional
duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the
privilege to practice law confers upon him.
 Gatchalian Promotions vs Atty. Primo Naldoza
A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999

Facts:
Atty. Naldoza convinced his clients to appeal a case from the POEA to the SC. Atty asked
from complainants $2.5K which he said were to be used for payment of docket fees and that the
court could take cognizance of the case. Later, complainant corporation came to know that the
fees to be paid to the SC consisted only of nominal fees for such kind of appeal. Atty in order to
cover up presented complainant a fake xerox copy of an alleged Supreme Court receipt
representing payment of $2.5K. A criminal case was filed for estafa. Atty was acquitted but was
held civilly liable for $2.5K.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Naldoza shoud be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct
from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. The burden of proof is
clearly preponderant evidence.
A finding of guilt in a criminal case or liability in a civil case will not necessarily result in a
finding of liability in the administrative case and vice versa. Neither will a favorable disposition
in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the lawyer. The basic premise is that
criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the
disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. Disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis
Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate the money entrusted
to him; he also faked a reason to cajole his client to part with his money. Worse, he had the gall
to falsify an official receipt of this Court to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve
to continue being a member of the bar.
Advice:
It is settled that the conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation
of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Lawyers are
officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards
of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act
with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from
allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules
of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Good faith, fairness and candor
constitute the essence of membership in the legal profession. Once he agrees to take up the cause
of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence and
champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken
or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
 Barrientos vs Daarol
AC No. 1512, January 29, 1993

Facts:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty Daarol, on grounds of deceit
and grossly immoral conduct. Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student,
single. Atty. Daarol went to her house because he was a friend of her sister, hence they also
became friends. She knew Daarol to be a single and as a General Manager of ZANECO (electic
cooperative).
On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos’ house and asked her to be one of the usherettes
in the Mason’s convention so the latter said he should ask for the permission of her parents. They
consented and so she served as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and taking her home
everyday.
In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioner’s house and invited her for a joy ride, with the
permission of her mother (who was Daarol’s former classmate). They went to the beach and
Daarol proposed his love for Barrientos and told her that if she would accept him, he would
marry her within 6 months from her acceptance. After a few days of courting, she accepted the
offer of love. Visitations continued and they agreed to get married in Dec 1973.
In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left, he took her for a joy ride
to an airport in Sicayab where there were no houses around. There, he pressured her into having
sexual intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and that he would marry her and that December
was very near anyway they would marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation because she
loved him. She cried after the deed.
This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October 1973, where she
consented because she loved him. Eventually, she became pregnant and informed Daarol. He
however suggested that she have the baby aborted. She refused. He told her that she didn’t have
to worry because they were getting married soon anyway.
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and told them that he
could not marry her because he was already married. He reassured them though that he has been
separated from his wife for 16 years and that he would work for the annulment of his marriage
and subsequently marry her. So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually wasn’t
able to contact Daarol anymore (he went MIA).

Issue: whether or not Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

Held:
Yes. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent only after the
complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent misrepresented himself as being eligible to
re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a marriage proposal
on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first marriage. It was a deception
after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered to annul said marriage.
Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the expense of the
gullible complainant. He is perverted. He says that: "I see nothing wrong with this relationship
despite my being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion.Finally, respondent even had the
temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages
and has inquired into the possibility of marrying complainant. As records indicate, however, his
claim of having embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence save that of his
self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent
Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in
order.
Advice:
The requirement of good character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting
standards of mental and moral fitness. Respondent having exhibited debased morality, the Court
is constrained to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action — disbarment.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but
must also be seen to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. Respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain
in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in
deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. They are expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
legal profession. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to
appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the
public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court, which made him one of its
officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
 Berbano vs Barcelona
AC No. 6084, September 3, 2003

Facts:
This is a disbarment case filed by Berbano against Atty. Barcelona for Malpractice and
Gross Misconduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer, Dereliction of Duty and Unjust Enrichment.
Berbano was one of the heirs of a certain Hilapo, who owned a lot in Alabang. Said lot was
being claimed by FIlinvest Development Corp so Berbano and her co-heirs appointed a certain
Mr. Daen as attorney-in-fact. However, Mr. Dane was arrested in Jan 1999 and was detained so
he needed the assistance of a law for his release. Someone recommended Atty. Barcelona to
them. So later that month, Atty. Barcelona went to see Mr. Daen in jail. The latter engaged the
services of Atty. Barcelona for his release. Atty. Barcelona told them that they (Berbano and
Co.) had to produce P50,000 at that time so that he could secure Daen’s release the following
day. Berbano didn’t have enough money and time to immediately come up with such big amount
but they were able to come up with P15,700. She handed Atty. Barcelona the money. He said
that he would go to the SC to talk to someone regarding the release of Daen, and that they should
just meet tomorrow. The day after, they met again. Berbano handed over another check worth
P24,000. The day after, they gave another P10,000 to Atty. Barcelona (through his wife and
daughter). There were other payments of money, the total amounting to P64,000. After much
time wasted, and promises reiterated of the release of Daen, Atty. Barcelona wasn’t seen again
and he didn’t return their calls. Daen was still in jail.
Atty. Barcelona failed to file an answer. Commissioner on Bar Discipline found
Barcelona guilty of malpractice and serious breach of CPR. He recommended disbarment and
return of the P64,000. IBP Board of Governots adopted such findings but recommended only
suspension.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney
himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from
the misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose
disregard for their oath of office have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed
in them as members of the bar.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court
to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
Complainant’s evidence consists solely of her Affidavit-Complaint and testimony before the
Commission attesting to the truth of the allegations laid down in her affidavit. The act of
respondent in not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating
Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt for legal proceedings.
Respondent collected money from the complainant and the nephew of the detained person in
the total amount of P64,000.00 for the immediate release of the detainee through his alleged
connection with a Justice of the Supreme Court. He deserves to be disbarred from the practice of
law. Respondent has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he has the
proper connections to secure the relief they seek, and thereafter, ask for money, which will
allegedly be given to such connections. In this case, respondent misrepresented to complainant
that he could get the release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through his connection with a Supreme Court
Justice. In so doing, respondent placed the Court in dishonor and public contempt. He is
disbarred.
Advice:
The respondent made a mockery of the Judiciary and further eroded public confidence in
courts and lawyers through his actions. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for
law, legal processes and the courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith
in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously demeaned the
legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a
Member of this Court. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to
the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a
member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The practice
of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental
fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of
the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the
bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
 Royong v. Oblena
G.R. No. 376, April 30, 1963

Facts:
Josefina Royong, the complainant, testified that after lunch, Cecilia Angeles, her foster
mother, left her alone in their house and went down to the pig sty to feed the pigs. While Josefina
Royong was ironing clothes on the second floor of the house, Ariston Oblena, the respondent
entered. Suddenly he covered her mouth with one hand and with the other hand dragged her to
one of the bedrooms of the house and forced her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout for
help because he threatened her and her family with death. He next undressed her as she lay on
the floor, then had sexual intercourse with her after he removed her panties and gave her hard
blows on the thigh with his fist to subdue her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, her warned
her not to report him t to her foster parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the members of
her family.
In a verified complaint filed with this Court on January 14, 1959, complainant Josefina
Royong charged the respondent Ariston Oblena, with rape allegedly committed on her person in
the manner described therein. Oblena, denied the charge against him stating that after lunch on
the date of the alleged rape incident, he went to the Commission of Civil Service to follow up his
appointment as technical assistant in the office of the mayor of Makati, Rizal, and read the record
of one of the cases assigned to him. Oblena, however, admitted that he had illicit relations with
Royong and that they had sexual intercourse for about fifty times.
During trial for the rape case, the Solicitor General discovered that although he did not
commit the alleged rape, he was nevertheless guilty of other misconduct. Oblena’s own evidence
shows that he has been living adulterously with Briccia Angeles and at the same time
maintaining illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia. Briccia
Angeles, however is still married to a certain Arines Angeles who is from Camarines Sur and
this fact was only made known to Oblena when they were already cohabitating as husband and
wife.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Oblena should be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. It is argued by the respondent that he is not liable for disbarment notwithstanding his
illicit relations with the complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married
woman, because he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. It is true that
the respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery on this count, and that the
grounds upon which the disbarment proceedings is based are not among those enumerated by
Section 24, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be disbarred. But it has
already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts to
exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it is a necessary incident to
the proper administration of justice; it may be exercised without any special statutory authority,
and in all proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the power may be exercised in
any manner that will give the party to be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to be heard.
The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in
either his professional or non- professional activities. The tendency of the decisions of this Court
has been toward the conclusion that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be broad
enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer.
In the case at bar, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. His pretension
that before complainant completed her eighteenth birthday, he refrained from having sexual
intercourse with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as he himself declared — and that he
limited himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicates a
scheming mind, which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his
lurid purpose. Moreover, his act becomes more despicable considering that the complainant was
the niece of his common-law wife and that he enjoyed a moral ascendency over her who looked
up to him as her uncle. As the Solicitor General observed: "He also took advantage of his moral
influence over her. From childhood, Josefina Andalis (Royong), treated him as an uncle and
called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a sister of her mother.
Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years old then), her inexperience and his moral
ascendency over her, it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him". Furthermore, the
blunt admission of his illicit relations with the complainant reveals the respondent to be a person
who would suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could be done without fear of
criminal liability. He has, by these acts, proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity
expected of a member of the bar.
An immoral act cannot justify another immoral act. The noblest means he could have
employed was to have married the complainant as he was then free to do so. But to continue
maintaining adulterous relations with a married woman and simultaneously maintaining
promiscuous relations with the latter's niece is moral perversion that cannot be condoned.
Respondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of the legal
profession.
Advice:
It is a principle established by jurisprudence that a lawyer’s misconduct, although
unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. The nature of the office,
the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney,
and the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an
attorney be a person of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to a
license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential
during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held that an
attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for
gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his
profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
 De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces
A.C. No. 439, April 12, 1961

Facts:
Respondent as a member of the bar and in his Capacity as a notary public, acknowledge
the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of one Tarcila Visitacion
de Jesus. The will was presented for probate before the CFI of Negros Oriental and was
impugned by her surviving spouse and daughter. CFI found that the will was a forgery, thus
rendered a decision denying probate to the will. A criminal action for falsification of public
document was filed against respondent. They were found guilty. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
conviction of respondent. Consequently, the offended part instituted the disbarment proceedings.
Respondent argued that the charges against him were based on insufficient and inconclusive
evidence, and were merely motivated by sheer vindictiveness, malice and spite.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of moral turpitude, and must be disbarred.

Held:
Yes. Section 25, Rule 127, of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney if it appears that he has been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes any act deemed contrary to justice,
honesty, and good morals. Indeed, falsification of public document is clearly contrary to justice,
honest, and good morals; it involves moral turpitude. Thus, he is amenable to disbarment.
Therefore, Supreme Court rendered a decision removing him from his office as attorney.
Advice:
It appearing that respondent has been found guilty and convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude it is clear that he rendered himself amenable to disbarment. Lawyers must be
mindful that Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (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) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do
so.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an
individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to
the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is
attained.