BASIC LEGAL

&
JUDICIAL ETHICS
CASES
• V E L EZ V. DE V E R A , 4 9 6 S CR A 3 4 5 ( 2 0 0 6)
• 2 0 0 9 I BP E L EC T IONS, 6 3 8 S CR A 1 ( 2 0 1 0)
• I N R E DI AO, 7 S CR A 4 7 5 ( 1 9 6 3)
 EN BANC
[ AC. NO. 6697, Jul 25, 2006 ]
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ v. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA
PER CURIAM
FACTS
◦ This is a disbarment case filed by Zoilo Velez against Atty. Leonard De Vera
who was then the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor and
Executive Vice-President (EVP) on grounds of Atty. de Vera's moral fitness to
remain as a member of the Philippine Bar.
◦ Atty. De Vera while in the U.S., became a member of the State Bar of
California and represented a client involved in an insurance case. The
Respondent received a check for the case settlement however, he deposited
the cheque for $12,000.00 into his personal account and spent the amount for
personal purposes.
◦ Atty. De Vera resigned and surrendered his license to practice law in California
and no final judgement was rendered despite a 3-year suspension
recommendation by the Hearing Officer who conducted the investigation.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Leonard De Vera committed malpractice
tantamount to moral turpitude in his practice of the legal profession
in the State Bar of California and in the Philippines
RULING
YES. Atty. Leonard De Vera committed malpractice amounting to moral turpitude.
His action to use his client’s insurance settlement money for personal purposes go against what
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility dictates and the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on
to his client's money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and
propriety.
In its decision for the case at bar, the Supreme Court said, “It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing
the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble
profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession
is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence.
Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.”
Decision: SUSPEND Atty. Leonard de Vera in A.C. No. 6697 from the practice of law for TWO (2)
YEARS, effective from the finality of this Resolution.
 EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, December 14, 2010 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN
THE ELECTION IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
CORONA, C.J.
FACTS
◦ An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan and his
group of Governors (The Vinluan Group) on the grounds of their high-handed
and divisive tactics which disrupted the peaceful and orderly flow of business
in the IBP.
◦ The Vinluan Group called and held for two (2) special meetings aimed to elect
a new set of officers of the IBP. In effect, a coup to remove incumbent IBP
President Bautista before the end of his term.
◦ The special meetings called and held by the Vinluan Group violated Sec. 42,
Art. VI of the By-Laws which provides that it is the President who shall call a
special meeting.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Vinluan and his group of governors committed
misconduct (Failure to uphold the dignity and integrity of the
Profession)
RULING
YES. The Respondent(s) Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan and his group of Governors (The Vinluan Group) erred
by committing misconduct by their failure to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.
The actuations of Atty. Vinluan’s Group in defying the lawful authority of IBP President Bautista, due
to Atty. Vinluan’s overweening desire to propel his fraternity brother, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano, to the
next presidency of the IBP, smacked of politicking, which is strongly condemned and strictly
prohibited by the IBP By-Laws and the Bar Integration Rule. Their acts were grossly inimical to the
interest of the IBP and were violative of their solemn oath as lawyers Their acts must not pass
unsanctioned.
Decision: xxx 3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon
and Raymund Mercado are all found GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their
actuations in connection with the controversies in the elections in the IBP last April 25, 2009 and May
9, 2009 and are hereby disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in any subsequent election.
While their elections as Governors for the term 2007-2009 can no longer be annulled as this has
already expired, Atty. Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of IBP Executive Vice President for
the 2007-2009 term and therefore barred from succeeding as IBP President for the 2009-2011 term;
xxx
 EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT
OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, PETITIONER
BENGZON, C.J.
FACTS
◦ This an administrative case against Telesforo A. Diao for disbarment filed by
Severino G. Martinez.
◦ Diao successfully hurdled the 1953 Bar Examinations which allowed him to be
admitted to the IBP.
◦ Two (2) years into his practice of law, it was found that Diao falsely
represented his application for the Bar Examinations – he did not complete his
high school training and never attended Quisumbing College
◦ In his defense, Diao claims that he entered the service of the U.S. Army
passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him)
is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the
educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd
and 4th year high school.
ISSUE
Whether or not Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from the
practice of law due to his failure to meet the “required pre-legal
education”
RULING
YES, Atty. Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from the practice of law.
Diao’s application disclosed that he began his law studies six months before he obtained his pre-
law degree thereby disqualifying him from taking the bar tests under the rules, but with the aid
of false pretenses, was allowed to take it, passed it and thereafter admitted to the bar.
The fact that he passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Chief Justice Bengzon, iterated that
passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an Attorney-at-Law. Taking
the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.

Decision: The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of
Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days.