KELD STEMMERIK v. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, AC. No.

8010, 2009-06-16
Facts:
Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. On one of his trips to
the Philippines, he was introduced to respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas. That was his
misfortune
After the various contracts and agreements were executed, the complainant tried to get
in touch with the respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in
his name. However, the respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer the
complainant's calls and e-mail... messages.
When the complainant visited the Philippines again in January 2005, he engaged the
services of the Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez Law Office
to ascertain the status of the property he supposedly bought.  He was devastated to
learn that aliens could... not own land under Philippine laws. Moreover, verification at the
Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources in Olongapo City revealed that the property was
inalienable as it was situated within the former
US Military Reservation.[5] The CENRO also stated that the property was not subject to
disposition or acquisition under Republic Act No. 14
The complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent in the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.[9] He deplored the respondent's acts of
serious misconduct. In particular, he sought the expulsion of the respondent from the
legal profession for... gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in
the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with the complainant's P3.8 million.[10]
The CBD ruled that the respondent used his position as a lawyer to mislead the
complainant on the matter of land ownership by a foreigner.[12] He even went through
the motion of preparing falsified and fictitious contracts, deeds, and agreements. And for
all these... shameless acts, he collected P400,000 from the complainant. Worse, he
pocketed the P3.8 million and absconded with it.[13]
The CBD found the respondent to be "nothing more than an embezzler" who misused his
professional status as an attorney as a tool for deceiving the complainant and absconding
with the complainant's money. The respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused
the trust... and confidence reposed by the complainant in him. The CBD recommended
the disbarment of the respondent.
Issues:
We shall first address a threshold issue: was the respondent properly given notice of the
disbarment proceedings against him? Yes.
Ruling:
Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the law
and uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they
must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of
oppression or... deception.
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional
policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse,
he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that
de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in
behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-
Dummy Law.[26]
The respondent’s misconduct did not end there. By advising the complainant that a
foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring
the complainant that the property was alienable, the respondent deliberately foisted a
falsehood on his client. He did not... give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed
in him by the complainant. Instead, he deceived the complainant and misled him into
parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover,
by pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by... complainant for the
purchase of the property, the respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in
nature.
Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after
unethical act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards.
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal
knowledge to further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others poses a clear and
present danger to the rule of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the
image of the bar... and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, but he
also betrays everything that the legal profession stands for.
It is the respondent and his kind that give lawyering a bad name and make laymen
support Dick the Butcher's call, "Kill all lawyers!"[27] A disgrace to their professional
brethren, they must be purged from the bar.
DR. RAUL C. SANCHEZ v. ATTY. SALUSTINO SOMOSO, A C. No. 6061, 2003-10-03
Facts:
Dr. Raul C. Sanchez, a member of the medical staff of Sta. Lucia General Hospital stated
that he was the attending physician of... respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso during the
latter's confinement at the hospital from 31 March to 09 April 1998.
When the respondent was discharged on 09 April 1998, he urged the complainant that,
since it was a public holiday and banks were closed that day for business, the latter
being.. good enough to accept a check in payment of the hospital bills due to the
complainant totaling P44,347.00. Although apprehensive at first, the complainant was
later persuaded, however, by the respondent's plea of his being a lawyer who can be
trusted as such. The complainant thus accepted two... personal checks from respondent
When deposited, the checks were dishonored. The complainant immediately met with
and informed the respondent about it. The respondent promised to redeem the
dishonored checks in cash; he never did.
Ultimately, the complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the respondent...
two Information for violation of BP 22 were filed against the respondent before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A warrant for his arrest was issued but,
somehow, the respondent was able to evade... arrest.
Issues:
The complainant in his administrative complaint submits that respondent is a disgrace to
the law profession and unfit to be a member of the bar, and that he should be disbarred
and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ruling:
IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the charges made by
complainant against the respondent and recommended that the latter be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Clearly, the respondent's
action of issuing his personal checks in payment for his medical bills, knowing fully well
that his account with the drawee bank has by then already been closed, constitutes a
gross violation of... the basic norm of integrity required of all members of the legal
profession.
"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."
The canons emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer
not only in the practice of the legal profession but also in his personal dealings as well. A
lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond
reproach anywhere... and at all times.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso GUILTY of
misconduct, and he is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months effective from receipt of this decision, with a warning that any further infraction
by him shall be dealt... with most severely.
 Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe
A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009

Facts:
Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, a former clerk of court of Branch 81 of Romblon,
addressed a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator. It was related to
Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees”, which prohibits public officials and
employees from engaging during their incumbency “in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.”
Atty. Buffe questioned the provision giving preferential treatment to
incumbent public officials and employees as regards private practice, while non-
incumbents, according to the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 6713, cannot practice
their profession in connection with any matter before the office they used to be with
for a period of one year after resignation, retirement or separation from public office.
Such a question was due to the fact that, within one year after her resignation from her
position, she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in
several cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon.
After review, the Court found that Atty. Buffe misinterpreted the law. The confusion
lay in the use of the term “such practice” after the phrase "provided that" and the
notion that incumbent public officials and employees are absolutely permitted to
practice of their profession. By a thorough analysis of the provision, the Court pointed
out the limitation that only those authorized by the Constitution or law and those that do
not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions are allowed.

Issue: Did Atty. Buffe, as a lawyer, violates the rules governing the practice of law by
means of her actions?

Held:
Yes, the Court found Atty. Buffe guilty of professional misconduct and was fined. She
was also sternly warned that repetition of the violation shall be dealt with more
severely. As ruled by the Court, by acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as
"unlawful," Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In addition, by failing to live up to her lawyer’s oath, she also violated
Canon 7 of the same Code.

Yes, By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as “unlawful,” Atty. Buffe contravened Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: CANON 1 – A LAWYER
SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
As indicated by the use of the mandatory word “shall,” this provision must be strictly complied with.
Atty. Buffe failed to do this, perhaps not with evil intent, considering the misgivings she had about
Section 7 (b)(2)’s unfairness. Unlawful conduct under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, however, does not
necessarily require the element of criminality, although the Rule is broad enough to include it.
Likewise, the presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential to bring his or her act
or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01, when it specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in
unlawful conduct. Thus, we find Atty. Buffe liable under this quoted Rule.

The court also find that Atty. Buffe also failed to live up to her lawyer’s oath and thereby violated
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when she blatantly and unlawfully practiced law
within the prohibited period by appearing before the RTC Branch she had just left. Canon 7 states:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

By her open disregard of R.A. No. 6713, she thereby followed the footsteps of the models she cited
and wanted to replicate – the former court officials who immediately waded into practice in the very
same court they came from. She, like they, disgraced the dignity of the legal profession by openly
disobeying and disrespecting the law. Through her irresponsible conduct, she also eroded public
confidence in the law and in lawyers. Her offense is not in any way mitigated by her transparent
attempt to cover up her transgressions by writing the Court a letter-query, which she followed up
with unmeritorious petitions for declaratory relief, all of them dealing with the same Section 7 (b)(2)
issue, in the hope perhaps that at some point she would find a ruling favorable to her cause. These
are acts whose implications do not promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
DIANA RAMOS VS. ATTY. JOSE IMBANG, A.C. NO. 6788, AUGUST 23, 2007

Facts :

This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.1992, Ramos sought the assistance of
Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita
Jovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000
only. Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses.
Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He
would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and
rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach “appearance” in court, respondent charged
her P350. Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any case against
the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the public Attorney's Office (PAO)

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

HELD:

YES, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.
More specifically, lawyers in government advice are expected to be more conscientious of their
actuations as they are subject to public conscientious of not only members of the bar but also public
servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. Also publicised this with three explanations:1.
Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. –
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of
any public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and
other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not

(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function. In this instance, Imban
received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still
connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship.

2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised
Administrative Code provides: The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in
extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil , labor, administrative and other
quasi-judicial cases. As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees from the
complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission.3. Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is obligated to
uphold the law. This undertaking includes the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions
blatantly violated by Imbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's
fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also
a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition
on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as Ramos' counts