VELASCO VS CAUSING

A.C. 12883
MARCH 2, 2021
Facts:

Complainant Enrico Velasco is the petitioner in a pending petition for

nullity of marriage wherein Atty Causing is the counsel for respondent Laudato.
Atty Causing on April 7,2016 messaged thru facebook the son of the complainant
saying “pakitignan mo ang iyong ama, iho at wag mo syang gagayahin ha” which
was accompanied by a link to a facebook post with the Caption of ‘Wise
Polygamous Husband”. In the same post, Atty Causing gave the public a glimpse
of the actual situation of the case as well as attached photographs of the copy of
the complainant’s petition in the same Facebook post and managed to share it to
a Facebook Group with at least 3,500 members. The post garnered negative
comments and reactions against the complainant.
Atty Causing admitted to having published and shared the facebook post
and invoked his authority as the lawyer-spokesperson of his client. Moreover, he
invoked his right to press freedom as he averred that he was a “journalist-
blogger”. The IBP found Atty Causing’s action as unjustified and ordered for the
suspension of the lawyer from the practive of law for a period of 1 year. Atty
Causing moved for reconsideration which was denied.
Issue:
Whether Atty Causing should be held liable for publishing the post and
photos of the petition of the pending nullity case
Held:
Yes, the Court adopts the findings of the IBP. Invoking his right to press
freedom for being a “journalist-vlogger” the Court finds this defense untenable as
a lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney and a mere citizen
at the same time.
The Code of Professional Responsibility under Canon 1 provides that a
Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Under Rule 8.01 also, a lawyer shall abstain
from the use of language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Additionally, Rule 13.02 provides that a lawyer shall not make public statements
In the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party. Finally, Rule 19.01 requires a lawyer to employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objective of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Atty Causing violated pertinent provisions of the law particularly the Family
Courts Act of 1997 when he published the subject post wherein he disclosed
confidential information about the case and included a very strongly worded
opinion of his towards the complainant. He further violated the Canons of
Professional Responsibility with his use of derogatory words such as
‘polygamous’. ‘criminal’, ‘cheater’, ‘arrogance’, and ‘disgusting’. As a lawyer, it is
to be noted that the use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no
place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for ne to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory
and illuminating but not offensive.
Lastly, although the right to press freedom is a right protected by the
Constitution, the same is not absolute. Freedom of expression may not be
availed of to broadcast half lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or
reputation or bring them into disrepute. Thus, the Court holds that Atty Causing
shall be liable for his actions.
 CRISTOBAL VS CRISTOBAL
A.C. 12702
NOVEMBER 10, 2020
Facts:

Atty. Jonathan Cristobal was legally married to one Divine Grace Cristobal
which was the complainant in a disbarment case against him. During the
subsistence of their marriage Divine allegedly suffered verbal, emotional,
psychological and physical abuse from Atty. Jonathan and particularly described
6 instances of altercations which includes either of the following abuses. Atty
Jonathan presented his own version of the story but did not categorically deny
having inflicted Physical Violence over the person of Divine. Initially, the
Commissioner sided with Atty. Cristobal over the theory that domestic squabbles
between a lawyer and his spouse does not warrant any infliction of disciplinary
action and an absence of criminal conviction filed by Divine does not enable any
disciplinary action to be made. However, such decision by the Comissioner of
IBP was reversed by the IBP Board of Governors and recommended Atty.
Cristobal’s disbarment. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Cristobal
to this effect.
Issue:
Whether or not domestic squabbles between a lawyer and his spouse is a
proper subject of a disbarment proceeding
Held:
Yes. A duty of a lawyer to comport one’s self in a professional and
respectful manner is not only confined to professional engagements but extends
to one’s personal life. This is in accordance with Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that 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.
The administrative case against Atty. Cristobal for alleged violence in
different forms and abusive behavior towards his wife clearly shows immoral
conduct on part of the lawyer. The dismissal of the criminal case does not
exculpate him from administrative liability. Atty. Cristobal is guilty The unlawful
conduct as enshrined under Rule 1.01 of the CPR based on substantial
evidence. The allegations of physical abuse were supported by Substantial
evidence and Atty. Cristobal never denied hurting Divine on several instances
mentioned in the case. Atty Cristobal’s display of violence towards his spouse
shows his lack of respet for the sanctity of marriage and is violative of his legal
obligation to respect Divine. Atty. Cristobal’s action would have been a valid
subject of a criminal proceeding had it not been for Divine’s desistance and
Divine’s alleged attempts to reconcile with him does not erase the fact that Atty.
Cristobal did not conduct himself in a manner required of him as a member of the
Bar.
 MA. HERMINIA T. TIONGSON VS ATTY. MICHAEL L. FLORES
A.C. NO. 12424
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Facts:
A former court employee ‘Vincent’ handed to Atty Michael Flores an order
of the RTC of a supposed Civil Case ordering the segregation of Jacinta
Tenorio’s land and ordering equal division of the same between her compulsory
heirs. Atty Flores knew that this order was falsified yet he shared this with his
client Arthur Tenorio. By virtue of the falsified order, Herminia was instructed to
refrain from planting in the land because the same land is to be divided between
Jacinta’s heirs and divesting her of ownership therefrom. Herminia later on found
out that the civil case wherein such court order was rooted was non-existent. A
case was filed against Arthur for falsification of public documents and grace
coercion. A criminal complaint was also filed against Atty Flores for having
allegedly handed the forged document to Arthur but maintained that such
document was not implemented nor did it prejudice anyone. A disbarment case
was also filed against Atty. Flores for misconduct, malpractice and deceit.
The IBP Commission on Bar discipline found Atty Flores in violation of
several pertinent canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and that it
warrants the penalty of disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the
findings of the commission and meted the supreme penalty of Disbarment.
Issue:
Whether or not it was proper for the IBP Board of Governors to impose the
penalty of Disbarment
Held:
No, the Court must exercise with great caution in the imposition of the
ultimate penalty of disbarment for lawyers. It is imposed only for 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 member of the bar. In cases
cited by the Court in deciding the case, it is to be noted that disbarment was
imposed only in cases where the forgery caused the lawyer to benefit from the
use of the fake documents.
It is to be noted that in the instatnt case, Herminia failed to show that Atty.
Flores authored the falsification, nor was it shown that Atty. Flores was directly or
indirectly involved in the falsification of the Court order. If any, Atty. Flores merely
admitted to having possession of the document after receiving it from Vincent
and gave it to his client Arthur, unknown to him, Arthur used it to harass
Herminia. Atty. Flores did not utilize nor derive any benefit from the fake court but
merely shared it to his client, and he did not feign ignorance to the falsity of the
document and insists of in its falsity.
However, this goes without saying that Atty. Flores is still administratively
liable under Rule 19.02 of the CPR requiring him to call upon his client and rectify
the perpertration of the fraud or any person or tribunal. Upon knowledge of this
falsity, he should have reported the matter to the authorities. Due to his
negligence, it encouraged Arthur to assert their claim against Herminia. The
Court also takes notice of Atty. Flores’ inaction and failure to answer and
absence from the mandatory conference. For these reasons, the penalty of
Disbarment is not warranted and Atty. Flores is Suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one year.
 IRENE R. PUNO VS. ATTY. REDENTOR S. VIAJE
A.C. NO. 12085
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
Facts:
Complainant is one of the stockholders of GRDC which was primarily
involved in the business of developing and sale of lots in its subdivision in
Magdalena Homes, Olongapo City. After being introduced by Sy, the contractor
of the Corporation, Atty. Redentor Viaje became the counsel of GRDC. On
January 2007, Atty. Viaje asked complainant to sign an Affidavit of Non Holding
of Annual Stockholders Meeting which was for the purpose of updating the
Corporations General Information Sheet. Atty. Viaje made it appear that the
affidavit was signed in December 2006. Unknown to the complainant, Atty. Viaje,
Sy, and Aris Gozun became stockholders of GRDC with Atty. Viaje being the
controlling stockholder. Complainant claimed that Atty. Viaje misused her shares
of stock for his own interests and for the purpose of increasing his supposed
shares in GRDC. As GRDC's counsel, Atty. Viaje prioritized his own personal
interest to the prejudice of GRDC and its stockholders. In line with this, the
instant case for disbarment was filed by the complainant. Further, complainant
alleged that Atty. Viaje's acquisition of his shares of stocks was malicious,
fictitious, and had no legal basis from the beginning. A disbarment case
The Commissioner of the IBP recommended that Atty. Viaje be
suspended from the practice of law for two years.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Viaje is guilty of misconduct and fraud thus justifying
the imposition of the penalty of disbarment
Held:
Yes. The Court finds it proper to deviate from the initial penalty of
suspension and instead metes the penalty of Disbarment. The Court finds that
Atty. Viaje, through fraud, duress, and coercion prevailed upon the complainant
to surrender his shares in GRDC by signing a Voting Trust Agreement and thus
making himself and two others a stockholder of said corporation. Atty. Viaje took
undue advantage of his knowledge as a lawyer to gain personal benefit at the
expense of complainant, GRDC, and its stockholders. He became the majority
stockholder by illegally holding a special stockholders meeting without the
required notice to stockholders of the said corporation and having no
qualifications as a director at that time.
Moreover, the court holds that when the integrity of a member of the bar is
challenge, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him, he must meet
the issue and overcome the evidence against him and show proof that he
maintains the degree of morality required of him. Atty. Viaje wasted the
opportunity given to rebut complainants' accusations. Instead of meeting them
head on, he was evasive in his answers. Without doubt, Atty. Viaje violated his
oath as a lawyer and breached the ethics of his profession. Lawyers 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." In this case, Atty. Viaje failed to live up to the standards and
demands required of him as a member of the Bar.
 LINO C. BERNAL JR. VS ATTY. ERNESTO M. PRIAS
A.C. NO. 11217
OCTOBER 7, 2020
Facts:

Sometime in December 2014, respondent lawyer went to the Office of the

Treasurer of Antipolo City to redeem a property registered under the name of the
Solid Builders Inc. by claiming to be a representative of an already delinquent
taxpayer or person having a lien or claim over the property. To no avail, the
treasurer office informed respondent that the payments he made will redound
only to the benefit of the declared owner and was advised to present any proof of
his authority or evidence in the mode of acquiring ownership to redeem the
property. Failing to show such proof, he was advised later on that the payments
he made could not serve its purpose for failing to show sufficient proof of legal
representation and that mere redemption cannot make him as a person of legal
interest. Eventually, he was allowed to redeem the property by making a promise
that he will subsequently submit proof of his alleged authority given by Solid
Builders. It was later on found out that respondent actually offered to buy the
subject property from its registered owners but such offer was refused to by Solid
Builders inc. and insisted that a certain Florentina Genove was its authorized
representative.

For his defense, respondent is of the position that he never

misrepresented himself as the authorized representative of the registered owner
contrary to the averments of the complainant. There never was any concealment
of the fact that respondent is the actual possessor of the lot and the only purpose
of the redemption in the name of Solid Builders, Inc. was to avoid paying interest
in the period before the allowable redemption period has expired. A disbarment
case was then filed against Atty Prias for alleged violation of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Frias is guilty of violating the Canons of Professional

Responsibility thus holding him administratively liable

Held:

Yes. Being a lawyer, respondent fully knew that he was not authorized to
redeem the property yet he deliberately misrepresented himself and paid the
redemption amount. His act of misrepresenting himself as a representative of
Solid Builders, Inc. authorized to redeem the property is a clear indication of
dishonesty. In accordance with canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution and obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes. A rule in the same canon
also provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.

The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted only to those
of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and
fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times
whether they are dealing with their clients or at the public at large and a violation
of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
 DELTAVENTURE RESOURCES INC., VS ATTY. CAGLIOSTRO
MIGUEL MARTINEZ
A.C. NO. 9268
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
Facts:

The disbarment case is premised for an alleged unlawful issuance of an

untruthful secretary’s certificate and violation of the Code of Professional
responsibility. The DBP filed with Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against
its former directors as well as the officers of complainant Deltaventures. Atty
Zenaida Ongkiko-Acorda acted as the spokesperson of DBP in the transactions
and matters involving Deltaventures. Some DBP Senior officers who were
involved in the case pending in the Office of the Ombudsman assailed the validity
of Ongkiko-Acorda’s representation as the representative and spokesperson of
DBP as allegedly she was not a bank lawyer, spokesperson, or consultant. DBP
then, through its Board of Directors and signed by their OIC of the Office of the
Corporate Secretary, respondent Atty Martinez, caused the issuance of a
Secretary’s Certificate by virtue of Board Resolution Number 0230. However,
complainants assail the validity of said certificate as well as the complaint lodged
before the Ombudsman by virtue of Board Resolution 0229 as it did not contain
any categorical declaration of Atty. Ongkiko-Acorda’s authority. In the subject
disbarment complaint,16 Deltaventure charged Atty. Martinez with violation of the
CPR and betrayal of his avowed Lawyer's Oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court," in relation to the assailed Secretary's Certificate.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Martinez is administratively liable for violation of the

Code of professional responsibility and must be disbarred

Held:

No, In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against a

member of the Bar, the complainant bears the burden of proof to satisfactorily
prove the allegations in his complaint through substantial evidence. Failure to
discharge this burden by the complainant, the presumption of innocence stands
in favor of the respondent lawyer. Deltaventure failed to discharge the burden of
proving the violations allegedly committed. Deltaventure merely offered its
personal opinion that it was illogical, impractical and far-fetched for DBP to have
convened twice in one day to come up with both Board Resolutions 0229 and
0230. However, this is merely a suspicion and speculation which does not credit
any weight.

It is also of the complainant’s contention that the hastily filing of the

administrative complaint against Mr. Ongpin was in deviation of the internal
procedure of DBP with regards to its preparation of its Board Minutes and
drafting of resolutions. Following the absence of evidence that DBP maliciously
filed the case or that Atty. Martinez personally took it upon himself to file the
same, the supposed deviation from DBP's internal procedure in the preparation
of the minutes and drafting of BR 0229 was not critical.

The Court is firm in its stand that where the purpose of disbarment cases
is to harass or get even with the lawyer, the same shall be dismissed.
 ANTONIO AGUINALDO VS ATTY. ISAIAH ASUNCION
A.C. NO. 12086
OCTOBER 07, 2020
Facts:

A disbarment case was filed by Antonio Aguinaldo against Atty. Asuncion

for allegedly violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
prohibiting a lawyer to enter into a deceitful conduct. In October 2010,
complainant and respondent agreed to enter into a contract to sell involving a
piece of land. Earnest money worth P100,000 was given by complainant and
respondent demanded the remaining P400,000. Aguinaldo refused as Atty.
Asuncion failed to provide the pertinent documents involving the subject property.
He insisted to the return of P100,000 but Atty. Asuncion refuses on the theory
that the earnest money served as guaranty that complainant would not back out
from the transaction. Both parties agreed to enter into a settlement but did not
materialize for failure of respondent to comply with his side.

The IBP Board of Governors found Atty. Asuncion guilty of violation of

Canon 1 of the CPR for engaging in deceitful conduct ordering his suspension for
a period of 6 months for Atty. Asuncion.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Asuncion is administratively liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Held:

Yes, as required by Canon 1 of the CPR, a lawyer shall uphold the

Constitution and obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and
legal processes. In the same rule, it is required that he shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 1 clearly mandates the
obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability,
a lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or
omission that is contrary thereto. Atty. Asuncion tricked the complainant into
agreeing to buy the property representing that the same is still owned by his
mother where in fact it no longer does. As a lawyer, he was duty bound to
observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the complainant. Further, the
respondent willfully refused to return the earnest money given by the
complainant, notwithstanding the fact that the transaction did not materialize.

Moreover, it is apparent that the misrepresentation of the respondent led

the complainant to agree to buy the subject property and parted with the earnest
money. The utter lack of good faith of the respondent was evident from his acts.
Despite several demands by the complainant, respondent lawyer refused to
return the earnest money and ignored the complainant. Noted is the fact that
there was already an agreed settlement yet the respondent still failed to
discharge his side of the agreement and even blamed the complainant the fault
or non-fulfilment of the respondent’s obligation. There was no good faith on the
part of respondent as he continuously failed to show any willingness to make
good of his obligation.
 FELIPE LAUREL VS ATTY. REYMELIO DELUTE
A.C. NO. 12298
SEPTEMBER 01, 2020
Facts:

Respondent is the counsel engaged by the Complainant in a case against

Azucena involving a parcel of land. One afternoon, respondent met with
complainant and his wife and represented to them that Azucena agreed to pay
P300,000 to clients. Thus, a document was signed by Laurel. Atty. Delute took
100,000 of the 300,000 given by Azucena. Unknown to spouses, the document
was actually a compromise agreement which effectively ceded Felipe’s
ownership over the land and a receipt of the money received by them. Same
document also provided a 3 meter right of way in favour of respondent.
Aggrieved by this, he filed an administrative case seeking the disbarment of Atty.
Delute. The IBP initially rendered its decision favouring the complainant ordering
the suspension of Atty. Delute from the practice of law for five years, prompting
the respondent to assail the same on the basis of laches for only having filed it
nine years later.

Issues:

Whether or not laches applies in disbarment cases

Whether or not the violations committed warrant the penalty of disbarment

and not merely suspension

Held:

Yes, in both instances.

The court has held that prescription or laches cannot apply in disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers as the the Court’s disciplinary authority cannot be
defeated or frustrated by a mere delay in the filing of the complaint or the
motivation to do so. The practice of law is intimately affected with public interest
that it is both the State’s duty and right to control and regulate it in order to
promote public welfare. Disciplinary proceedings against erring lawyers are sui
generis as they are neither criminal nor civil, it involves investigations by the
Court of the conducts of its members, not the trial of an action or a suit.

Atty. Delute blatantly violated Rule 15.03 as well as Canons 17 and 18 of

the CPR requiring him to observe Candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients. Case law provides that lawyers shall avoid the
appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers. The relationship between
client and lawyer is one imbued with trust and confidence of the highest degree.
He personally profited when he induced his client to sign a purported innocent
document which turned out to be a compromise agreement to the prejudice of
the client. Moreover, he is required to undertake the task of representing his
client with zeal, care and utmost devotion. Thus, considering the violations of
pertinent provisions of the Code, the Court rendered its decision ordering the
Disbarment of Atty. Delute from the practice of law.
 JUSTICE FERNANDA LAMPAS-PERALTA ET AL VS
ATTY. MARIE RAMON
A.C. NO. 12415
MARCH 05, 2019
Facts:

On March 8, 2016, an entrapment was made to arrest the respondent for

allegedly receiving the marked money in consideration of the issuance of a fake
decision ordering the acquittal of Tirso Fajardo, the accused in a still pending
criminal case before the Court of Appeals. Said fake decision was purportedly
written and penned by the complainant judges of the Court. Respondent is a law
practitioner who intended to extort money from the accused and his relatives in
exchange for the decision providing for his acquittal. After being apprehended,
the IBP recommends for the disbarment of the lawyer involved in violation of her
sworn duties as a lawyer and the Code of professional responsibility in dragging
the names of the Justices in the fraudulent transaction.

Issue:

Whether or not disbarment is proper in this case

Held:

Yes, Atty. Ramon violated several provisions of the Canons of

Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 requires a lawyer to abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening the confidence in the legal
system. Rule 7.03 further requires a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession. In line with the issue of issuing a fake decision, he violated
Rule 10.03 which requires that a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and
shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Respondent was in gross violation of several canons and rules of the code
when she represented that she could secure the acquittal of Fajardo and even
included the names of the Associate Justices despite the case being still pending
before the court of appeals. She discredited members of the judiciary by
wrongfully involving complainants’ names in her fraudulent scheme and even
misrepresented that she can influence the Justices in securing a favourable
decision for Fajardo’s acquittal. Doubtless, respondent had a clear intent to
violate the law when she fraudulently drafted a fake decision of the CA, falsely
including therein the names of complainants, and presenting it to her clients for
monetary consideration. These acts show respondent's wanton disregard of the
law and a patent propensity to trample upon the canons of the Code.

Disbarment is proper in this case as there was sufficient substantial

evidence to support the complaint clearly indicating the acts complained of.
Section 27 of the Rules of Court provides that a member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondent's acts
should not just be deemed as unacceptable practices that are both disgraceful
and dishonourable; these reveal a moral flaw that makes her unfit to practice law.
She has tarnished the image of the legal profession and has lessened the public
faith in the Judiciary. The ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon
respondent. Her name should be stricken off immediately and without reservation
in the Roll of Attorney.
 REV. JOSE P. ZAFRA III VS ATTY. RENATO PAGATPATAN
A.C. NO. 12457 (FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 16-5128)
APRIL 2, 2019
Facts:

The disbarment case stemmed from a criminal suit filed by Fr. Zafra
against the clients of the respondent. While the case was pending, respondent
wrote a letter to the Bishop of Diocese of Tandag requesting an investigation of
Fr. Zafra for his activities in concocting stories against the accused in the criminal
suit for estafa and that such is not merely a sin but a mortal sin. Fr. Zafra was
embarrassed by this malicious letter. Fr. Zafra further alleges that respondents Is
engaged in the unlawful practice of the law for he was already deemed
suspended by the Court which has not yet been lifted by the Court and continued
to represent party litigants in several courts in Davao.

For his defense, Atty. Pagatpatan reasoned that merely aided his clients in
bringing to the attention of the Bishop the actuations of Fr. Zafra in filing the
complaint for estafa. The letter was for purposes of convincing Fr. Zafra to settle
"silently" and "not go to the extent of having the estafa charges ventilated in a
full-blown trial. He does not deny the allegation of unlawful practice of law as he
allegedly needed to work for sustenance and support of his family.

Issues:

Whether or not Atty. Pagatpatan is administratively liable for violations of

the Code and for engaging in Unlawful practice of the Law

Held:

Yes. Atty. Pagatpatan's letter-request was not based on a sincere purpose

to discipline Fr. Zafra for his actions, but mainly to bring threat to Fr. Zafra and
force him to settle the estafa case filed against his clients. Atty. Pagatpatan did
not want the estafa case to proceed to a full-blown trial. Lawyers are duty bound
to abstain from offensive personality and to effect no prejudice to the honor or
reputation of any person or party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged. However, for this issue, the penalty of
disbarment is too harsh.

However, Disbarment may be imposed by reason of the wilful

disobedience of Pagatpatan to obey the order of the Court to refrain from the
practice of the law. Pagatpatan has been practicing law despite the issuance of a
suspension order by this Court on June 15, 2005. There were no records
showing that he served said suspension or moved to lift said order because Atty.
Pagatpatan, himself, admits that he continued practicing the legal profession
notwithstanding said order. The Rules of Court provide that a member of the bar
may be disbarred for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The Court sees it as a mockery that Pagatpatan still
engages in the practice of law despite the subsisting suspension and his
defiance for the suspension order for a period of 11 years. He would have
continued disregarding this order and his actions clearly indicate gross
misconduct which is a sufficient cause for disbarment. Atty. Pagatpatan's acts in
wantonly disobeying his duties as an officer of the court show utter disrespect for
the Court and the legal profession. Therefore, his disbarment is warranted.
 PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT VS ATTY. AURELIO JESUS LOMEDA
A.C. NO. 11351
AUGUST 14, 2019
Facts:

An accommodation mortgage was extended by UCPB to Lantaka

Corporation where Big “N” Corporation served as the accommodation mortgagor.
This was made through submission of documents by Respondent Atty. Lomeda
in his representation as the Corporate Secretary of Big “N” Corporation. This
documents included a Memorandum of Agreement and a Notarized Secretary’s
Certificate allegedly issued by Respondent in behalf of Big “N”. With these
documents, UCPB extended a credit line worth 10 million pesos to Lantaka. Later
on Big “N” filed an action for nullity of the memorandum agreement for being null
and void as they alleged that Lomeda was neither a corporate secretary of Big
“N” nor was he known to them. A judgment based on compromise was entered
where Lomeda admitted to having misrepresented his being a corporate
secretary and had no authority to issue said documents. Despite the civil case
being dropped, an administrative case was still filed seeking the disbarment of
Atty. Lomeda.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Lomeda violated the CPR thus holding him liable
administratively and warranting disbarment

Held:

Yes. Canon 1 of the CPR requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution,

obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Same canon provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The lawyer's oath enjoins every lawyer not only to
obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
court. Respondent patently transgressed the lawyer's oath and the CPR by
knowingly misrepresenting himself as the corporate secretary of Big "N",
executing a Secretary's Certificate containing false statements, and knowingly
allowing himself to be used in perpetrating fraud to the prejudice of Big "N",
which likewise resulted to the prejudice of herein complainant. These acts were
admitted by respondent, which admission was recognized by the trial court in its
Judgment Based on Compromise. The excuse that it was Palanca who prepared
the document is not accepted by this Court as he still knowlingly executed a
falsified document and made him be used in his legal capacity to perpetrate a
deceptive ploy to the prejudice of Big N. It is also to be noted that aside from the
falsity made, respondent likewise showed no respect to the Court as it did not
dare to comply with the order of the IBP to participate in its proceedings thus
exhibiting an utter lack of respect for the authority of the Court.

Notable also is that when respondent served as a judge, he previously

committed gross negligence in violating constitutional rights of an accused in a
criminal case and for having given a false testimony before an open court. The
circumstances in the instant administrative case against respondent as a lawyer,
coupled with those in the administrative matter against him as a Judge and as a
witness in court certainly reveal his character and manifest his propensity to
commit falsehood without moral appreciation for, and regard to the
consequences of his lies and frauds.
 PAZ SANIDAD VS ATTY. JOSEPH JOHN GERALD AGUAS
A.C. NO. 9838
JUNE 10, 2019
Facts:

In 2001, Complainant Sanidad and Respondent Atty. Aguas entered into

an agreement for the sale of a co-owned property for the amount of P1,500,000.
From 2001 to 2011 Sanidad made payments amassing to 1,152,000 as evidence
by deposit slips of the proof of payments. He further alleges that with his legal
knowledge, Atty. Aguas harassed her by sending demand letters and threatening
her of eviction and consistently pressured her to immediately vacate the property
or be meted with eviction. For his comment, Aguas alleged that the payments
made by complainant were actually rental payments totalling the amount
aforementioned. Allegedly, he has long been overdue of his rental payments as
he started residing there since 1980 and Sanidad’s stay In the property was mere
tolerance.

In the mandatory conference, the parties agreed to amicably settle and the
civil case against respondent was dismissed. Aguas further claimed that the title
over the property was already given to Sanidad even without payment of a single
centavo. The findings of the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of the use of legal
knowledge to mislead Sanidad and issued a stern warning that repetition of the
same shall be dealt with more severely. The IBP BOG adopted the findings of the
lower body.

Issue:

Whether or not the Atty. Aguas is guilty of misconduct and dishonesty thus
rendering him administratively liable

Held:

Yes. The complainant through substantial evidence has proved the

allegations in the complaint. The Court takes notice of the proof of payments
made by complainant to the respondent as provided by the payment slips. Next,
the court finds it questionable that payments made by complainant to be rental
payments considering the amounts paid were to substantial to be considered as
rental payments. Moreover, the claim that he gave title to complainant even
without payment would run contradictory to his claim that Sanidad’s payments
were rentals and no payment was made for the sale of the property.

Despite the receipt of payments, Atty. Aguas was persistent in demanding

payments from complainant and even threatened her with eviction. Rule 1.01 of
the CPR requires a lawyer to not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. This is not merely confined to the performance of his duties but
also in his private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

Respondent's claim that he decided to turn over the title of the subject
property to Sanidad without receiving a single centavo is outright outrageous to
deserve any credibility. The Court finds this contradictory to his claim that the
payments were indeed made for rentals. Further, the lack of transparency due to
respondent's failure to give acknowledgment receipts and the lack of written
contracts is highly suspicious of deceit and fraud because it inevitably placed
Sanidad in a rather disadvantageous position. Worse, respondent has utilized the
lack of written contracts and acknowledgment receipts in threatening to evict
respondent despite the apparent receipt of payments. Clearly, respondent failed
to live up to the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
required of him as a member of the legal profession. Instead, he employed his
knowledge and skill of the law and took advantage of Sanidad to secure undue
gains for himself.
 DR. VIRGILIO RODIL VS ATTY. ANDREW CORRO
A.C. NO. 10461
JULY 30, 2019
Facts:

Atty. Coro was formerly detailed as a Court Attorney at the Office of the
former SC Assoc. Justice Villarama. In the letter-complaint of Dr. Rodil, petitioner
herein, he averred that his friend Atty. Aguinaldo, asked him if he had any
connection with the SC who could help his client who had a pending criminal
case, who is Alejandro who was convicted for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

In view of this Dr. Rodil contracted the assistance of the Records Officers
of Supreme Court who facilitated the alleged transactions with Atty. Corro.
Relevantly, Ancheta, one of the Records Officer gave Dr. Rodil information about
Atty. Corro after finding out that the case was raffled to then Associate Justice
Villarama. Eventually, in exchange for a favorable decision acquitting Alejandro,
Atty. Corro allegedly asked for a total of Ten Million Pesos (PhP 10,000,000.00).

Afterwards, Atty. Corro supposedly gave Ancheta the advanced copy of

the decision of the case. Dr. Rodil later on discovered that the advanced copy
was actually a fake after he requested an official copy of the decision in the
Reporters Office of the Supreme Court. Dismayed, Dr. Rodil tried to contact Atty.
Corro but he completely ignored the former. Because of this, Dr. Rodil sent his
representative to the Office of then Associate Justice Villarama to find Atty.
Corro. He subsequently learned that Atty. Corro had already resigned from the
Supreme Court. This prompted Dr. Rodil to file a complaint against Atty. Corro.

Issue:

WON Atty. Corro is liable in violating the Code of Professional

Responsibility

Ruling:

YES. As recommended by the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Court

imposes the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Corro.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that disbarment or
suspension may be imposed upon a lawyer based on certain grounds such as
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

Taking these grounds into account and juxtaposing it with the established
factual circumstances of the case, there is no doubt that by demanding and
accepting the bribe in the amount of PhP 10 Million, Atty. Corro, as found by the
OBC, committed gross misconduct and grossly immoral conduct, and violated
the laws against bribery, graft and corruption in the government service.

Further, the Court found that Atty. Corro essentially violated certain
provisions of Canon 1, Canon 7, and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Lumbre v. Belleza
A.C. No. 12113
March 6, 2019

Facts:

Complainant Leo Lumbre filed a complaint to the Commission on Human

Rights, which the latter had forwarded to the Committee on Bar and Discipline of
the IBP, stating that the herein respondent Atty. Erwin Beleza, together with a
barangay kagawad and other civilians destroyed the nipa hut in the garden of the
undersigned with the use of bolo. Then, together again with the same
companions, aimed their firearms towards Lumbre’s children, all minors, chased
and attempted to kill them, which abuse on the minors caused them fear and
affected their normal development.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended that the respondent be held

liable for gross misconduct and be punished for a higher penalty as he clearly
violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("CPR") in relation
to the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act" ("RA 7610") when respondent chased and threatened to kill
the two complainants who are both minors, the absence of fired shots
notwithstanding.

Issue:

WON the respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct for

chasing and threatening the minors with his guns

Ruling:

YES. The Court find and hold that the respondent transgressed ethical
norms of conduct as a lawyer, and was thus guilty of gross misconduct. He
should be condignly penalized for violating the letter and spirit of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the said Code provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01); and that
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 (Rule 7.03).

Evidently, the respondent ignored his sworn duty to uphold the law and to
shy away from any conduct that tended to degrade the law profession. He
wittingly turned himself into an instrument of terror against the minors. Not even
his claim of merely advocating his client's interest justified his doing so. 

The respondent's behavior patently transgressed the earlier quoted

provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and rendered him liable for
gross misconduct, defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.

The Court finds him liable for gross misconduct and imposes a penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.
 Venzon v. Peleo
A.C. No. 9354
August 20, 2019

Facts:

The petitioner Marife Venzon and respondent herein, Atty. Amador Peleo
III met Cavite and the respondent subsequently became the counsel of the
petitioner in her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. By the time that the
judicial decree of annulment came out, they were already in a serious
relationship. They had a son and lived together as a family in an apartment
leased by the respondent. However, their relationship turned sour as years go by
and the respondent herein stopped in visiting the petitioner and her son unlike
before and he stopped in giving support.

In his comment, the respondent denied that he was not giving child
support. He claimed that from 2009 until 2011, complainant had been receiving
the monthly apartment rent of ₱12,000.00 and that in lieu of the cash allowance
she was demanding, he gave her a 900- square meter property within a
subdivision in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

The IBP Board of Governors resolved that respondent’s liability for gross
morality and as a penalty, it held that respondent should be disbarred.

Issue:

WON the respondent is liable for gross immorality and should be

disbarred

Ruling:

YES. Respondent is charged with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, forbidding lawyers from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.

The Court took an objective action because respondent’s pattern of

conduct has already impacted on his professional fitness and status as a
member of the Bar. Respondent maintained sexual relation with complainant and
several other relations while his marriage is subsisting; respondent misused the
legal process by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without any
serious intention to prosecute it; respondent falsified the place and date of
marriage entries in the birth certificate of his son; respondent has repeatedly
failed to give child support to his son, a minor, which is a clear violation of the
Family Code; respondent seriously disrespected the IBP's authority and dignity
when he disregarded an agreement brokered by the IBP between him and
complainant; and respondent has been deceiving the government and private
businesses by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens' discount when he is
not legally entitled thereto.

By these six (6) counts of unlawful, immoral, dishonest, or deceitful

conduct, respondent has lost his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. He
is ordered disbarred.