Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No.

5118, September 9, 1999

Disbarment due to gross misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Violation of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
Complainant Marilou Sebastian acquired the legal services of Atty. Dorotheo Calis for processing the former’s trip to
the USA in exchange for a consideration amounting to Php.150, 000.00.

Atty. Calis informed Sebastian to assume another identity as her passport. At first, Sebastian hesitated and
demanded the return of her money from Atty. Calis, realizing that she would be travelling to US with spurious
documents. Because of the assurance given by Atty. Calis that nothing would go wrong and that she will be
refunded of her payment in case that there would be, Sebastian continued to travel with passport and visa which
bear another identity together with the other recruits of Atty. Calis.

Upon arrival at SG International Airport, Sebastian was apprehended by the SG Airport officials for carrying spurious
travel documents. For three days, Sebastian was detained in Singapore. Upon her return to the Philippines, he
demanded her full payment of Php.150, 000.00 from Atty. Calis who, in turn, only made partial refunds amounting to
Php. 26,000.00. Later, Atty. Calis, despite repetitive demands for the remaining balance, was found to be already
transferred to an unknown residence with the intention to evade responsibility.

LOWER COURT:
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found Atty. Calis to be guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
CPR, which states that, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct,” and
recommended that he be suspended from the legal practice until he fully refunds the complainant.

The case elevated to the IBP Board Governors for review. The Board recommended that he be disbarred due to
gross misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful practices.

ISSUE:
Whether the violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Services will lead to disbarment? Yes.

RULING:

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a
lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyer’s relationship with others should be characterized by the highest
degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer’s oath. The lawyers oath is not mere
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature of the office of
an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character. This requisite 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 Court have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the
practice of law.

1
Guarin v. Limpin, A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015
Suspension due to falsifying documents and abetting activities towards lessening the legal system (Violation of Rule
1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
Atty. Christine Limpin filed a General Information Sheet with the SEC on December 18, 2008 for updating purposes
by which she certified Arcatomy S. Guarin to be the Chairman of Board of Directors and the President of Legacy
Card, Inc. However, Arcatomy Guarin already resigned from his post as President of OneCard Company, Inc.,
member of Legacy Group of Companies, effective August 11, 2008. He was never also shareholder of such
company, therefore it is impossible for him to be the Chairman of BOD.

Guarin filed an administrative complaint against Limpin for the latter’s disbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of CPR when she willingly falsified a document. Limpin contended that Guarin had agreed to it because of
the certification by which he attested to the information to be filed as GIS to the SEC last March 3, 2008.

The Commission on Bar of Discipline found that upon investigation that the certification averred by Limpin that
shows the agreement of Guarin to the GIS in question is untrue since such Secertary’s Certificate showed only that
Guarin is to become a signatory of the bank accounts of LCI and not a shareholder.

The CBD of IBP found that Atty. Limpin violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when she filed a GIS to the SEC containing fals information. Likewise, the IBP Board of Governors
affirmed the decision of the former in toto. Both quasi-judicial agencies recommended suspension from legal
profession.

ISSUE:
On what grounds did Atty. Garin violate the Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
respectively?

RULING:
The Court find that in filing a GIS that contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not
conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

The Court also agree with the IBP that in allowing herself to be swayed by the business practice of having Mr. de
los Angeles appoint the members of the BOD and officers of the corporation despite the rules enunciated in
the Corporation Code with respect to the election of such officers, Atty. Limpin has transgressed Rule 1.02 of the
CPR.

2
Valdez v. Dabon, A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015
Disbarment due to illicit extra-marital relationship (Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03 and Canon 7 of Code
of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
Nelson P. Valdez, husband of Sonia Romero Valdez, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Antolin Allyson
Dabon for disbarment due to grossly immoral and indecent conduct of the latter when he allegedly maintained an
illicit extra-marital affair with complainant’s wife through threat and intimidation.

Sonia admitted that she had an illicit relationship with Atty. Dabon for more than five years. She claimed that upon
learning by Atty. Dabon of her decision to break off the relationship, he relentlessly pursued her up to the point
where Atty. Dabon would include sleep-inducing drug into her food so that he could sexually molest her. She
admitted that her silence is to avoid adverse repercussions of shame and embarrassment to her family.

Meanwhile, Atty. Dabon denied all the claims of Sonia on matters of sexual assault and molestation and further
posited that Sonia’s accusations were an elaborate scheme to force him to immediately resign from his post in the
CA.

Both CBD and IBP Board of Governors were in uniform to recommend disbarment on the case of Atty. Dabon upon
finding the evidence of the existence of the illicit relationship of the two.

The Court finds the claims of Atty. Dabon to be negative pregnant, i.e., he only denied the accusations of threat and
intimidation but not the existence of the illicit relationship. Because of this, he is deemed to have been admitted the
existence of a relationship between him and Sonia.

ISSUE:
Whether willfully maintaining an illicit relationship for more than five years constitutes a grossly immoral conduct that
warrants disbarment? Yes.

RULING:
It has been repeatedly held that to justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. It is willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference
to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.

In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife showed his moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. It manifested his disrespect for
the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and
low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, he has fallen below the moral bar. Such detestable
behavior warrants a disciplinary sanction. Even if not all forms of extramarital relations are punishable under penal
law, sexual relations outside of marriage are considered disgraceful and immoral as they manifest deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

3
In re: Tagorda, G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929
Suspension due to soliciting legal services (Violation of Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of Code of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
Luis B. Tagorda, on distributing cards during general elections and writing a public letter addressed to the town of
Echague, Isabela, solicited his legal services and volunteered in giving advice into bringing lawsuits.

ISSUE:
Whether solicitation of employment by Tagorda on his campaign cards and public letter a ground for disbarment or
suspension? Yes.

RULING:
The ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the
standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
bar. It results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted

by personal relations, is unprofessional, and the commission of offenses of this character amply justices permanent
elimination from the bar. But as mitigating circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his
intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and,
third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. As a result, the respondent attorney is suspended
from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month.

4
Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009
Suspension due to solicitation of legal services (Violation of Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of Code of Professional
Responsibility)

FACTS:
Because the clients of Linsangan Linsangan Linsagan Law Office were convinced by the paralegal of Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino to transfer legal representation to the latter, Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.

Linsangan presented the calling card of Atty. Tolentino as evidence to his claim. Such calling card bears that the
legal services offered by Atty. Tolentino are with financial assistance and that at the back portion it lists the
particular services that the respondent are offering.

Atty. Tolentino denied knowing his paralegal and authorizing him to the printing and circulation of the said calling
cards.

ISSUE:
Whether the said calling card distributed by the paralegal of Atty. Tolentino consitutes malpractice of solicitation of
clients? Yes.

RULING:
A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his
character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in
reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyer’s name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;

(c) address;

(d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.28

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used to entice clients
(who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money
was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the
legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared
to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling
cards.

5
Paas v, Almarez, A.M. No. P-03-1690, April 4, 2003
Suspension due to use of misleading and deceptive address to receive court notices (Violation of Rule 3.01, Canon
3 of Code of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was revealed that Judge Paas' husband, private
practitioner Atty. Paas, was using his wife's office as his office address in his law practice, which indicated Atty.
Paas' address to be Room 203, Hall of Justice, Pasay City, the office assigned to Pasay City MeTC, Branch 44.

In a joint affidavit of Judge Paas and Atty. Paas, they vehemently denied the charge that the latter was using Room
203 of the Pasay City Hall of Justice as his office address, they claiming that Atty. Paas actually holds office at 410
Natividad Building, Escolta, Manila with his partner. Atty. Paas’ partner and secretary likewise attested that hat Atty.
Paas' visits to the court are neither routine nor daily occurrences, and he never used the court in the practice of his
profession.

However, in supplemental affidavit filed by Judge Paas, she admitted that Atty. Paas did use her office as his return
address for notices and orders but only to ensure and facilitate delivery of those notices, but after the cases were
terminated, all notices were sent to his office address in Escolta.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Paas committed fraudulent, misleading and deceptive claims in using the Pasay City MeTC as his
address for his legal services?

RULING:
Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address that had no purpose other than to try
to impress either the court in which his cases are lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member of the
juiciary, in violation of the following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer's case, instead of banking on his relationship with a member of the
bench which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It is
unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer's prestige. Public
confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible and improper conduct.

This Court does not subscribe to the proffered excuse that expediency and a desire to ensure receipt of court orders
and notices prompted Atty. Paas and Judge Paas to allow him to have his court notices sent to office of Judge
Paas, especially given the fact that for his other cases, Atty. Paas used his office address but there is no showing
that he failed to receive the notices sent to that address. While a lawyer should make the necessary arrangements
to ensure that he is properly informed of any court action, these should not violate his lawyer's oath or the Code of
Professional Responsibility, nor provide an opportunity for a member of the judiciary to breach his or her
responsibilities under Supreme Court circulars and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

6
San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Romanillos, A.C. No. 5580, June 15, 2005
Disbarment due to the use of the title “Judge” despite having guilty of grave and serious misconduct (Violation of
Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
Following with the previous administrative case against Atty. Roberto Romanillos wherein he was admonished by
the CBP of IBP and IBP Board of Governors for having represented both conflicting parties, he still acted as counsel
for the substituted defendant Durano and Co., Inc and Lydia Rodriguez.

By this, SJHAI, petitioner of the previous case, filed another administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Romanillos and for his use of the title “judge”although he was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct while
being a Judge before.

Atty. Romanillos, in his defense, stated that since the filing of the instant petition he had ceased to attach the title to
his name. Moreover, he contended that the complaint for disbarment was only a rehash of the first complaint against
him and he continued to represent the substituted defendants because the decision on the first complaint was still
pending.

The Investigating Commisioner of CBD of IBP believed that respondent was deceitful when he used the title
"Judge", thus creating a false impression that he was an incumbent and recommended a penalty of suspension for
four months. This in violation of Rule 1.01 and 3.01, Canon 1 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the
penalty of suspension into six months.

ISSUE:
Whether the use of title “Judge” is applicable to those former judges who were found guilty of grave and serious
misconduct? No.

RULING:
The Court have previously declared that the use of titles such as "Justice" is reserved to incumbent and retired
members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by any other
official of the Republic, including those given the rank of "Justice". By analogy, the title "Judge" should be reserved
only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service. As
correctly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the right to retain and use said title applies only to the
aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and certainly not to those who were removed or dismissed
from the judiciary, such as respondent.

It is noted that is not respondent’s first infraction as an officer of the court and a member of the legal profession. He
was stripped of his retirement benefits and other privileges in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.  In A.C. No. 4783, he got
off lightly with just an admonition. Considering his previous infractions, respondent should have adhered to the
tenets of his profession with extra fervor and vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, he manifested undue disrespect
to our mandate and exhibited a propensity to violate the laws. He is thus unfit to discharge the duties of his office
and unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is consequently
warranted.

7
Dacanay v. Baker-McKenzie, A.C. No. 2131, May 10, 1985
Mandated to prohibit lawyers of Baker-McKenzie to use the firm name Baker-McKenzie (Rule 3.02, Canon 3, Code
of Professional Responsibility)

FACTS:
When the respondents, using the firm name Baker-McKenzie, ordered the client of Atty. Dacanay, Clurman, to
release 87 shares of Cathay Products to Gabriel, the respondent’s client, Atty. Dacanay denied the liability of
Clurman to Gabriel on the ground that the respondent are practicing law under firm name, Guerrero and Torres.

With no reply from the respondents, Atty. Dacanay proceeded to file an instant complain enjoining the respondents
from practicing law under the name of Baker-McKenzie.

ISSUE:
Whether practicing law under a firm name established in foreign countries is allowed in the Philippines?

RULING:
The Court hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule
138, Rules of Court). Therefore, the respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie.

8
RE: REQUEST OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID TO EXEMPT LEGAL AID CLIENTS FROM PAYING
FILING, DOCKET AND OTHER FEES, A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009
(In consonance with Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

The IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter for IBP National Legal Aid Office proposed a resolution to exempt legal aid
clients from paying filing, docket fees incidental to the filing and litigation of actions to Courts and other quasi-judicial
bodies.

The IBP thru National Legal Aid Office commented the the PAO clients were already exempted from paying such
fees and that because the SC have previously a circular exempting IBP clients from paying transcript of
stenographic notes, it is also proper to grant legal aid clients the exemption of payment of filling and docket fees
since IBP-Legal Aid Office’s allocated budget is barely enough to cover various operating expenses.

At the same time the IBP thru NCLA laud the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP for its effort to help improve the
administration of justice, particularly, the access to justice by the poor.

Supreme Court:

The Constitution guarantees the rights of the poor to free access to the courts and to adequate legal assistance.
The legal aid service rendered by the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters nationwide addresses only the
right to adequate legal assistance. Recipients of the service of the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP chapters may
enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from the payment of fees assessed in connection with the filing of a
complaint or action in court. With these twin initiatives, the guarantee of Section 11, Article III of Constitution is
advanced and access to justice is increased by bridging a significant gap and removing a major roadblock.

The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby COMMENDED for helping increase
the access to justice by the poor. The request of the Misamis Oriental Chapter for the exemption from the payment
of filing, docket and other fees of the clients of the legal aid offices of the various IBP chapters is GRANTED. 

9
10