respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Atty.
Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.
Dantes vs Dantes
FACTS: Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty.
Dantes purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women,
one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From
the time respondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular
support to his wife and their children, thus forcing her to work
abroad to provide for their children’s needs. Atty. Dantes admitted
the fact of marriage with her and the birth of their children, but
alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eighteen years
before after his wife had abandoned him in their residence. He
further asserted that Mrs. Dantes filed the case just to force him to
remit 70% of his monthly salary to her.
Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the
birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, all
surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of his husband and his
paramour to prove the fact that he sired three illegitimate children
out of his illicit affairs with two different women.
ISSUE:whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the
subsistence of marriahe warrants the disbarment of a lawyer.
RULING: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so
willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community.To be the basis
of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be 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.
Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships
with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to
the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in
conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established
TOLEDO v. TOLEDO
FACTS: Paz Arellano Toledo, a dentist, alleged that she is the wife of
Atty. Jesus Toledo, that she supported and spent for his studies in
FEU but after passing the bar, he abandoned. She also alleged that
he is cohabiting with another woman and borne him 3 children. She
prayed for his disbarment from the practice of law.
Upon the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General which his
alleged wife presented pieces of evidence, respondent was charged
for abandonment and immorality and the Solicitor prayed that he be
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
"that the charges contained therein are not based on and supported
by the facts and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted by
the Office of the Solicitor General." Hence, the Court set the case for
hearing. The respondent prayed that his motion be first resolved or
be denied, hence invoking Section 6, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.
However, instead of doing what the rule requires, the respondent
filed a motion to dismiss without stating that he intended to present
evidence in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. The fact that at the
close of the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General, he made of
record his desire to present evidence in his behalf, is not sufficient.
The correct manner and proper time for him to make known his
intention is by and in the answer seasonably filed in this Court.
Now, to resolve the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Toledo be disbarred or suspended.
1
RULING: Yes. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and
cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, has
failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
required of a member of the Bar. Hence, he is disbarred from the
practice of law.
Through a rigorous test by the Solicitor, the maid of respondent,
Marina Payot, also testified that the lawyer was living with a person
named Corazon Toledo as wife of the respondent with a child of
their own, named Angie. Lino Domingo, operator-mechanic in the
Bureau of Public Highways, also stated that he knows the lawyer and
her wife, Corazon, for he goes to the lawyer’s residence every now
and then.
The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence.
OBUSAN V OBUSAN
Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one
Natividad Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo begot a son with Obusan.
Obusan later found out that Estabillo was at the time still validly
married with one Tony Garcia. Four days after the birth of his son
with Estabillo, Obusan married Preciosa Razon. The couple lived
more than a year together until one day when Obusan left the
conjugal home and never returned.
license, despite her objection, he wrote “single” as her status. After
getting the complainant pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and
subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina Malicdem
believing again that her previous marriage was also void ab initio.
ISSUE: (1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter
into a subsequent marriage
HELD: Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent
Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has
not rebutted complainant’s evidence as to the basic fact which
underscores that bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place,
the pretended defense is the same argument by which he inveigled
complainant into believing that her prior marriage or Merlito A.
Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito
being allegedly first cousins to each other), she was free to contract
a second marriage with the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre,
being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument
ran counter to the prevailing case law of the supreme Court which
holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally
free to contract a second marriage , a judicial declaration that the
first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential.

Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has
been living with Natividad Estabillo. Preciosa then filed a disbarment
case against Obusan on the grounds of gross immorality and
adultery. Preciosa presented the testimonies of the neighbors of
Estabillo who all testified that Estabillo and Obusan presented
themselves as husband and wife in their community.

ISSUE: Whether or not Obusan should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his

wife. He even failed to file responsive pleadings. Hence, on the
strength of the evidence against him, he is guilty of grossly immoral
conduct. Abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with
a former paramour, a married woman, falls within “that conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community”. He failed to maintain the highest degree of
morality expected and required of a member of the bar.

TERRE v. TERRE

FACTS: On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre

charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar
with “grossly immoral conduct,” consisting of contracting a second
marriage and living with another woman other than complainant,
while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsisting No
judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration
obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with
complainant.

Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy

by complainant. Dorothy Terre was then married to a certain Merlito
Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre
succesfully convinced complainant that her marriage was void ab
initio and they are free to contract marriage. In their marriage

2
St. Louis University High School Faculty and Staff
vs. Atty. dela Cruz
FACTS:
Ø  disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of
the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School against Atty.
Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS on the grounds
that:
1.      Gross Misconduct:
a.       pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly
committed by him against a high school student
b.      a pending administrative case filed by the Teachers,
Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board
created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and unethical
acts of misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers
c.       pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the
NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal
deduction of salary by respondent.
2.      Grossly Immoral Conduct: second marriage despite the
existence of his first marriage
o   respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera before
Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas.  He subsequently
married with Mary Jane Pascua before the Honorable Judge
Guillermo Purganan which was subsequently annulled for
being bigamous.
3.      Malpractice: notarizing documents despite the expiration
of his commission.
o   On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that
respondent deliberately subscribed and notarized certain legal
documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite
expiration of respondent’s notarial commission on 31
December 1987.  A Certification dated 25 May 1999 was
issued by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court to the
effect that respondent had not applied for commission as
Notary Public for the period 1988 to 1997.  1.      After his first failed marriage and prior to his second
Ø  Pacheco submitted his report and recommended that:
1.      For contracting a second marriage without taking the
appropriate legal steps to have the first marriage annulled first,
he be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year
2.      For notarizing certain legal documents despite full
knowledge of the expiration of his notarial commission, he be
suspended from the practice of law for another 1 year.
Ø  IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the
recommendation of the Commissioner.
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be penalized for a suspension
of 2 years in total.
HELD: Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in
disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 2 years,
and another 2 years for notarizing documents despite the
expiration of his commission
Ø  A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing
any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and
trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the legal profession.  Towards this end, an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his
duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory
grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any
misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.
Ø  Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not
prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members.
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private
life. 
Ø  One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an
applicant must possess good moral character.  Possession of
such moral character as requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice must be continuous.  Otherwise,
“membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer
ceases to have good moral conduct.”
Ø  Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he
contracted the bigamous second marriage.  As such, he cannot
feign ignorance.
Ø  the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not
determinative of an administrative case against him.  So long
as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - in
disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met,
then liability attaches.
Ø  Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly
immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment.
o   Immoral conduct-conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community
o   grossly immoral- must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree
Ø   In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.  His act of
contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still
in place, is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
However, measured against the definition, we are not prepared
to consider respondent’s act as grossly immoral.  This finds
support in the following recommendation and observation of
the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors, thus:
marriage or for a period of almost 7  years, he has not been
romantically involved with any woman
2.      His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions
and total love for his wife, whom he described to be very
intelligent person
3.      He never absconded from his obligations to support his
wife and child
4.      He never disclaimed paternity over the child and
husbandry with relation to his wife
5.      After the annulment of his 2nd marriage, they have
parted ways when the mother and child went to Australia
6.      Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.
Ø  respondent himself acknowledged and declared his abject
apology for his misstep.  He was humble enough to offer no
defense save for his love and declaration of his commitment to
his wife and child.
Ø   imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh. The
power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may
be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of
the Court. Disbarment should never be decreed where any
lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. I
Ø  a penalty of 2 years suspension is more appropriate.
Ø  respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain
documents despite his knowledge that he no longer had
authority to do so.  He alleged that he received no payment in
notarizing said documents.
3
Ø  Notarization of a private document converts the document disciplinary action against the lawyer.10
into a public one making it admissible in court without further ·         In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in
proof of its authenticity.  A notarial document is by law entitled circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign
to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, ownership of lands by preparing said documents.
notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic o   Respondent had sworn(oath) to uphold the Constitution.
requirements in the performance of their duties.  Otherwise, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of LINSANGAN V TOLENTINO
conveyance would be undermined.
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint
Ø  The requirements for the issuance of a commission as
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino,
notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality.
The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty.
documents without the requisite commission to do so as Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty.
“reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but Linsangan’s allegations.
also x x x the crime of falsification of public documents.”
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling
Ø  The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization
of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a card which appears as follows:
time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the
offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one,
FRONT
performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation
of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
Notarial Law.  Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly LAW OFFICE
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
oath similarly proscribes.  These violations fall squarely within W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not Fe Marie L. Labiano
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Paralegal
By acting as a notary public without the proper commission to
do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code,
which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity BACK
and dignity of the legal profession.         
Ø  Other charges constituting respondent’s misconduct such SERVICES OFFERED:
as the pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly
committed by him against a high school student filed before the CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
Prosecutor’s Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
an Investigating Board created by SLU; and the pending labor
case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
respondent, need not be discussed, as they are still pending ABROAD.
before the proper forums.  At such stages, the presumption of
innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent.

Donton vs. Atty. Tansingco,
FACTS:
·         disbarment complaint against respondent Atty.
Emmanuel O. Tansingco for estafa thru falsification of a public
document against Duane O. Stier, a U.S. citizen and thereby
disqualified to own real property in his name, as the notary
public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement, recognizing
Mr. Stier’s free and undisturbed use of the property for his
residence and business operations.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Emmanuel O.
Tansingco should be liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule
1.02 of the Code.
HELD:  YES. GUILTY. SUSPEND for SIX MONTHS.
·         Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
o   A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to
any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is
bound to uphold and obey.
o   A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who
connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also
denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached
upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling
card of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good
result or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangan’s
clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep
into another’s legal practice.

4
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially
denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in
the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his
law office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice
was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that Atty.
Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.

Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the
law office will finance legal actions for the clients. The rule is, a
lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he
is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind

so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely
affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s
cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the
client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject
matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of
these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own
recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement
which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of
the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s
cause.

The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“,
was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation)
to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal
actions.

However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty.

Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the printing of said
calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate, for all
the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was suspended by the
Supreme Court for one year.