Case no.

DIO TIONG VS ATTY. GEORGE FLORENDO, A.C. NO. 4428 , DECEMBER 12, 2011A.C. NO. 4428 ,
DECEMBER 12, 2011

FACTS:

Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong.
Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo
were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard
Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both
eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed
an affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are
seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But
nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.

Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already pardoned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.

HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of
cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As
such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for
disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his
utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed
upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma.
Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others.
It cannot be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion
considering that their affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.
 Case No. 2

CORAZON NEVADA VS ATTY. RODOLFO CASUGA, A.C. NO. 7591 , MARCH 20, 2012

FACTS:

In 2007, Corazon Nevada, filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rodolfo Casuga. Nevada alleged the
following: 1. That Atty. Casuga acquired several pieces of jewelry from her; the jewelries include
diamond earrings and diamond rings amounting P300,000.00. and a Rolex gold watch worth $12,000.00;
that Casuga assured her that he will sell them; but despite repeated demands, Casuga never remitted
any money nor did he return said jewelries. 2. That in 2006, Casuga, taking advantage of his close
relationship with Nevada (they belong to the same religious sect), Casuga represented himself as the
hotel administrator of the hotel (Mt. Crest) that Nevada own; that as such, Casuga was able to enter into
a contract of lease with one Jung Chul; that he negotiated an office space with Chul in said Hotel for
P90,000.00; that Casuga notarized said agreement; that he forged the signature of Edwin Nevada
(husband); that he never remitted the P90k to Nevada. In his defense, Casuga said: 3. That Nevada
actually pawned said jewelries in a pawnshop; that she later advised Casuga’s wife to redeem said
jewelries using Mrs. Casuga’s wife; that Casuga can sell said jewelries and reimburse herself from the
proceeds; that he still has possession of said jewelries. 4. That he never received the P90,000.00; that it
was received by a certain Pastor Oh; that he was authorized as an agent by Edwin Nevada to enter into
said contract of lease.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is merit in Atty. Casuga’s defense.

HELD: No. Atty. Casuga is in violation of the following:

1. Gross Misconduct: Casuga misrepresented himself as a duly authorized representative of Nevada

when in fact he was not. He never adduced evidence showing that he was duly authorized either by
Edwin or Corazon. He also dialed to adduce evidence proving that he never received the P90k from Chul.
On the contrary, a notarized letter showed that Casuga did receive the money. His misrepresentations
constitute gross misconduct and his mere denial does not overcome the evidence presented against
him.

2. Violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: It is his duty as a lawyer to account for
all moneys and property of his client that may come to his possession. This is still applicable even though
said property/money did not come to his possession by virtue of a lawyer-client relationship. He failed
to adduce evidence to prove his claim that Nevada pawned said jewelries. He never presented receipts.
Further, even assuming that Nevada did pawn said items, Casuga was still duty bound to return said
jewelries upon demand by Nevada.

3. Violation of Notarial Rules: He signed a document (contract of lease) in behalf of another person
without authorization. His forgery made him an actual party to the contract. In effect he was notarizing a
document in which he is party in violation of the notarial rules (Secs. 1 and 3, Rule IV). 4. Malpractice of
Law: As a summation of all the above violations, Casuga is guilty of Malpractice and Misconduct. Such
act is punishable under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, the Supreme Court deemed
that disbarment is too severe a punishment against Casuga. He was suspended for 4 years from the
practice of law. His notarial commission was likewise revoked and he is disqualified to be a notary public
while serving his suspension. The Supreme Court emphasized: the penalty of disbarment shall be meted
out only when the lawyer’s misconduct borders on the criminal and/or is committed under scandalous
circumstance.

Case No.3

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO vs. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, April 16, 2012 FACTS: On January 8, 2005,
Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to
handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of
PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by and between
Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of
PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. Moreover for every payment that
Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter
made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City
and waiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she
verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case of Tuparan had
been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Arnel
C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility RULING: This court finds that Atty.
Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation
and Petition for Review, he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzette’s case as well as to
account and return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty
citing the lack of intention to breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is his first offense; and that his
profession is the only means of his and his family’s livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount
of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he received
less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00. Consequently, Commissioner Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD
Board of Governors correctly recommended the appropriate penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law for violating the pertinent provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. As
stated under Canon Law, CANON 16 – A lawyer shall not hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client. RULE 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence. RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall
keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information. Furthermore, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that
may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from
his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a
case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a
presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion
of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly
violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within
30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of such payment.

Case No. 4

IN RE: RODOLFO PACTOLIN , A.C. NO. 7940, APRIL 24, 2012

FACTS: In May 2008, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 161455 (Pactolin vs Sandiganbayan), affirmed the
conviction of Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin for violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification by
a Private Individual). It was duly proved that Pactolin falsified a letter, and presented said letter as
evidence in a court of law, in order to make it appear that his fellow councilor acting as OIC-Mayor
illegally caused the disbursement of public funds. In said decisions, the Supreme Court referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for appropriate administrative actions against Pactolin.

ISSUE: What administrative sanctions can be imposed upon Atty. Pactolin considering his conviction?

HELD: Rodolfo Pactolin should be, and is henceforth disbarred. The crime of falsification of public
document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. As a rule,
the Supreme Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most severe form of
disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct
affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the
bar. But it has always been held that it is appropriate to disbar a lawyer if he is convicted by final
judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Further, Pactolin’s situation is aggravated by the fact
that although his conviction has been affirmed, he has not served his sentence yet.

Case No. 5

EMILIA O. DHALIWAL vs. ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012

FACTS: Emilia O. Dhaliwal (complainant) she engaged the services of Atty. Aberlardo B. Dumaguing
(respondent) connection with the purchase of a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. (Fil-
Estate). Atty. Dumaguing was then given P342,000.00 for him to consign with the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB). On September 22, 2000, respondent, on behalf of complainant, filed with the
HLURB a complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate. A week after, or on September
29, 2000, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the checks previously consigned. On March 3,
2003, complainant informed the HLURB that respondent is no longer representing her. On March 11,
2003, the HLURB promulgated its Decision, finding the case for delivery of title and damages premature
as there was no evidence of full payment. Complainant then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return her
the amount he earlier withdrew but responded did not comply. Dhaliwal filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Dumaguing. Responded admitted all the allegations in the complaint. In his
defense, he claims that the amount of P311,819.94 was consigned to the HLURB to cover the full
payment of the balance of the purchase price of the lot. Respondent allegedly filed a motion for
reconsideration but HLURB has not yet acted upon it. He attached a copy of the said motion in his
answer.

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

HELD:

Yes. It was established that Atty. Dimaguing submitted a false and fabricated piece of evidence because
it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other party
was notified. He violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that: Canon
16-A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him. Rule 16.03-A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. He is suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered to return to complainant said amount of
P311,819.94 with legal interest.