Consolidated Case Digests in

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Submitted by:

Mariel Grace C. Delin

Leslie Ui vs Atty. Iris Bonifacio
ADM. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Doctrine: The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the
right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due
process, once lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics.

FACTS: Complainant Leslie Ui is married to Carlos Ui sometime in December 1987. During

their marriage, complainant found out that her husband is having an illicit relationship with
the herein respondent with whom he begot a daughter. Then, sometime in 1986,
complainant went to the office of the respondent and introduced herself as the lawful wife
of Carlos Ui, believing that from that moment the illicit relationship between her husband
and the respondent would end. However, she then again discovered that their relationship
continued. The illicit relationship continued until respondent was employed by her husband
in his company.

Then, complainant filed a disbarment case against the herein respondent before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the ground of immorality. Respondent, in her
answer said that she met Carlos sometime in1983 and known him as bachelor but have
children with a Chinese woman. During their trips abroad, Carlos formalized his intention
and marry her in Hawaii, USA. She contends that her relationship with Carlos is not illicit
because they were married abroad and after she discovered the true civil status of Carlos,
she immediately cut ties with him.

The Commission dismissed the case filed by the complainant on the ground that the act of
the respondent cannot be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible
to high degree, she was also found to be a victim in this case. The resolution of the
Commission was thereafter adopted and approved by the Board of Governors.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

HELD: NO. The effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they
will have a rippling effect on how the standards norms of our liberal society today is a far
cry from what it used to be before. Lawyers are keeper of public faith, are burdened with
a high degree of social responsibility and thus, must handle their affairs with great caution.

Immoral conduct has been defined as the 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.

The act of the herein respondent cannot be considered as grossly immoral to warrant
disciplinary action. However, there is imprudence on her part that she did not bother to find
out if Carlos is married to the woman whom he has children. The respondent’s act of
immediately distancing herself from Carlos upon discovering his true civil status belies just
alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and
the high moral standard of the legal profession.
Cynthia Advincula vs Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata
A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007

Doctrine: Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good
mora character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar
in good standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a requisite
condition for maintain in the practice of law.

Facts: Herein complainant sought the legal services of herein respondent to collect sum of
money from Queensway Travel and Tours, and the latter sent a demand letter to the party’s
concern. After their discussion of the possible filing of the complaint against the travel and
tours, complainant was sent home by the respondent, and while she is about to step out
of the car, he hold her arms and kiss her on the cheek and embrace her tightly.

Then, they met again to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in court. After the
meeting, respondent offered again a ride, while on the way, complainant felt sleepy and
when she was restless, respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and kissed
her on the lips. After that incident, complainant texted the respondent informing him that
she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the case folder
from him. There were exchange of text messages between the parties, and one of it is the
respondent apologizing for what he did.

Complainant then file a criminal case and a disbarment case against the herein respondent.
In his answer, respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal services to the
complainant and that they met twice in difference date to finalize their legal action against
the travel and tours. Then, the Commission passed a resolution that instead of disbarment,
respondent is hereby suspended from practice of law for three months.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed acts grossly immoral which

constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant disbarment.

HELD: NO. Respondent admitting having kissed the complainant on the lips, the same was
not motivated by malice because after the complainant expressed her annoyance at being
kissed by the respondent, respondent through text messages extended an apology to
complainant. Also, the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the
vicinity, if the respondent truly had malicious designs on the complainant, he could have
brought her to a private place or more remote place where he could freely accomplish the
same.

To constitute disbarment, the act should be a clear case of misconduct which seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of
the Bar, and only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment
or suspension.

Considering that this is respondent’s first offense, reprimand would suffice. Therefore, the
complaint for disbarment was dismissed. However, the respondent was reprimand to be
more prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients.
Carrie-Ann Shaleen Caryle S. Reyes vs. Atty. Ramon F. Nieva
A.C No. 8560, September 6, 2016

Doctrine: Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is

required to possess. It may be defined as “what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally
entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by the public in the
place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one
which corresponds to objective reality.” Such requirement has four
ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the public; (b) to protect the
public image of lawyers; (C) to protect prospective clients; and (d) to protect
errant lawyers from themselves.

FACTS: Complainant is working at the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines

(CAAP) as administrative aide on a job order basis. Sometime in 2009, complainant
was reassigned at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary where the herein respondent
is her supervisor. Complainant noticed that during the office hours respondent would
watch videos which turned to be pornographic films. She also averred that whenever
respondent got close to her, he would hold her hand and would sometime kiss it. Ther
are several instances that the respondent would take advantage of his position to ger
advantage of the complainant.
Due to the acts of the respondent, complainant alleges that she was traumatizes and
was even diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder with recurrent major depression. Then, complainant filed a disbarment case
against the respondent.
In his answer, respondent denied all the complainant’s allegations and maintained that
he is already 79 years old and that he is incapable of such acts, and their office is so
small that it is impossible that a startling occurrence would not be noticed. The IBP’s
report found that there is no probable cause to disbar the respondent. However, the
IBP Board of Governor’s reversed the report and found respondent guilty.
Hence, this case.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for

violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon
admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good
standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice
of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long
as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
Record reveal that complainant’s allegations are adequately supported by a Certificate of
Psychiatric Evaluation stating that the onset of her psychiatric problems. In addition,
respondent never refuted complainant’s allegation that he would regularly watch
“pampagana” movies in his office-issued laptop.
The Court cannot countenance such audacious display of depravity on respondent’s part
not only because his obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he
works for.
In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron Meling in the
2002 Bar Examination and for Disciplinary Action as member of the
Philippine Shari a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendez
B.M No. 1154, June 2004

Doctrine: Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law.

FACTS: Atty. Melendez filed with the OBC a petition to disqualify Haron Meling from takin
the 2002 Bar Examination and to impose on him appropriate disciplinary penalty as a
member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. He alleges that Meling did not disclose in his petition
to take the 2002 Bar Exams that he has 3 pending criminal case before the MTCC, Cotabato
City. The cases arose from an incident when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words
against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people, and
purportedly attacked Melendrez’s wife which cause injury. Also, he uses the word “Attorney”
in his communication.

In his answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him
because retired Judge Moson advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez.
As regards the “Attorney”, he admits that some communication really contained such
words.

Issue: Whether or not Meling is disqualified to take the 2002 Bar Examinations.

HELD: YES. OBC recommends that Meling not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s oath and
sign the Roll of Attorney’s in the event that he passes the Bar Examination. Further, his
membership in the Shari’a Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court.

Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are 3 criminal cases against him speaks of his
lacj of the requisite good moral character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege
bestowed upon him as a member of the Shari’a Bar.
Emma Dantes vs Atty. Crispin G. Dantes
A.C No. 6486, September 22, 2004

Doctrine: The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from

engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as the conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community.

FACTS: The herein complainant is the wife of the herein respondent, she filed a
disbarment case against her husband on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and
violation of professional ethics and law.
She alleged that the respondent is philanderer and was engaged in an illicit
relationship with two women and had illegitimate children. The acts of her husband
prompt her to work abroad to provide for their children.
In his answer, respondent said that they mutually agreed to separate 18 years before
the complainant had abandoned him in their residence. He alleged that he is the one
who sent their children to the best school which he could afford and provide for their
needs.
The IBP, conducted investigation and from there gathered enough evidence and
recommends for the indefinite suspension of the herein respondent.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

HELD: YES. Lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court
is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but must
also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.
If practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those
enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirements of good moral character is
of much greater impost, as far the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal
learning.
Respondent’s acts of engaging in an illicit relationship with two different women during the
subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct
warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions.
Eduardo M. Conjuanco,Jr. vs Atty. Leo Palma
Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004

Doctrine: “The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure
up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a
candidate to the bar, the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic
preparation but require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These
standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer
must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk of suspension or removal

FACTS: Complainant filed a disbarment case against the herein respondent on the ground
that deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as lawyer and
grossly immoral conduct.
Complainant sought the legal services of the herein respondent. The respondent’s
relationship with the complainant’s family became so intimate. He even tutored the 22-
year-old daughter of the complainant. Then, after sometime, respondent and Lisa the
daughter of the complainant got married abroad without the knowledge of Lisa’s family.

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral

conduct and a ground for disbarment.

HELD: YES. It is a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was
respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s family as well as the latter’s completer trust in
him that he made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. Respondent’s culpability is
aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just 22-year-old college student and was under
psychological treatment for emotional immaturity which would make her as an easy prey.

The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is that, ”shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.” This is founded on the lawyer’s primordial duty to society as spelled out in
Canon 1.
Mercuria D. So vs. Ma. Lucille P. Lee
BM No. 3288, April 10, 2019

Doctrine: The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. It is
extended only to the few who possess the high standards of intellectual and
moral qualifications and the Court is duty-bound to prevent the entry of
underserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted
but have become a disgrace to the profession.

FACTS: The OBC received a letter from the herein complainant alleging that Lee is a
defendant in a civil case and is not fit to take the Bar considering her irresponsible
attitude towards her monetary obligations.

Lee, in her defense, claimed that she was unaware of the pendency of the civil case
as she learned of it only when she registered for the oath taking. She, however,
admitted that she owed 200,000 from So but she already paid such obligation.

In its resolution, the court held in abeyance Lee’s request to be allowed to sign the
Roll of Attorney’s in view of the pending case. Then, in her petition, she stated that
the civil case was dismissed because of compromise agreement they entered.

The OBC recommended that Lee be allowed to retake the lawyer’s oath and sign the
Roll of Attorneys subject to the condition that she inform the Court within one month
from the time she has made her first payment.

Issue: Whether or not Lee should be allowed to retake the Lawyer’s oath and
sign the Roll.

HELD: YES. The pendency of the civil case alone should not prevent successful Bar
examinees to take their lawyer’s oath and sign the roll of attorney’s, unless the same
involves acts or omissions which had been previously without determined by the Court to
be tainted with moral turpitude. This is of course without prejudice to the filing of any
administrative action against would-be lawyers who fail to continue to possess the required
fitness of member of the legal profession.
A.C No. 2841, July 3, 2002
RE: Administrative Case No. 44 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV,
Tagbilaran City, against Atty. Samuel C. Occeña

Doctrine: Membership in the Bar is in the category of mandate to public

service of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society
whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics,
and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and
justice.

FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from the settlement of the estate of
testator William Oga. The late testator divided his estate among his seven children.
One of them is Necitas Occena was named in the Will of the executrix and as such,
she retained her husband Atty. Samuel Occena, as her lawyer. The estate consists of
bank deposits, securities both in the Philippines and in USA. The deceased left no
debt; Thus, the settlement should have been simple and speedy. However, since the
death of the testator, the settlement of his estate has not yet been terminated owing
largely to the dilatory of Atty. Occena. From the start of the testate proceedings, no
less than 13 petitions were filed with the SC and the CA by Atty, Occena, questioning
the interlocutory orders of the probate court. But most, if not all, were without merit.
Atty. Occena also deliberately refuses to appear in court, comply with court orders,
and submit answers on why he should not be held in contempt. Because of this
behavior, he succeeded in delaying the proceedings for 38 years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.’s acts constitute gross violation of his lawyer’s
oath.

HELD: YES. Through his tactics, he successfully delayed the disposition of the case
for the last 38 years causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to the heirs, but also
to Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case. Atty. Occena has caused a mockery of
the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the administration of justice through
his deceitful, dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral conduct. Indeed, he abused
beyond measure his privilege to practice law. His conduct constitutes serious
administrative offenses, punishable under Section 27 of Rule 138.

Therefore, the court disbarred Atty. Samuel Occena from practice of law, and
his name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
A.C No. 1928, August 3, 1978
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A.
Edillion

Doctrine: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not

violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Integration does not
make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.

Facts: The respondent is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The
IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted resolution no. 75-65 recommending to
the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
“stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the latter’s
constitution notwithstanding due notice.

The court required the respondent to comment on the resolution and a letter
adverted, he submitted his comment reiterating his refusal to pay the membership
fees due from him. The core of his argument is that the provision constituting his
duties to pay the membership fee is an invasion of his constitutional rights is a sense
that he is being compelled, as a precondition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in
good standing, and that he is being deprived his liberty and property guaranteed in
the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not compulsory membership in the IBP is

unconstitutional.

HELD: NO. The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with plenary power in all cases
regarding the admission to and supervision of the practice of law. The compulsory
membership therein is not violative of lawyer’s constitutional freedom to associate.
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already
a member. He becomes a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar Examinations.
All integration actually does not provide an official national organization for the well-
defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a
member.

The compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme
Court, in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in
this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program.

Therefore, the court unanimously disbarred the respondent and his name was
ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
A.C No. 12005, July 23, 2018
Achernar B. Tabuzo vs. Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos

Doctrine: Lawyers should treat their fellow members of the legal profession
and even their non-lawyer adversaries with utmost candor, respect, and
dignity. More importantly, the primary purpose of administrative
disciplinary proceedings against delinquent lawyers is to uphold the law and
to prevent the ranks of the legal profession from being corrupted by
unscrupulous practices.

Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Constitution, the Rules of
Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
and RA 6713 when he failed to act on her pleadings with dispatch and for issuing his
report and recommendation 174 days from the submission of the last pleading.

Complainant averred that respondent was very cruel and heartless to an

inexperienced lawyer when he mutilated statements made in her pleadings, and that
he maliciously cropped and pasted portions of complainant’s statement in her position
paper to give wrong impression before the IBP-Board of Governors.

In his answer, respondent denied the allegations and contended that they were not
only false and an unfortunate misappreciation of the laws, the facts, and the
circumstances but also an act of harassment.

The IBP Commission recommended the dismissal of the complainant for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable for

rendering an alleged adverse judgment in his capacity as an investigating
commission of the IBP.

HELD: NO. The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-
Committee on Bar Discipline adopted by the IBP-Governors, and dismissed the
administrative complaint filed against Atty. Gomos. Furthermore, the Court sternly
warns Atty. Tabuzo and her collaborating counsel Atty. Barboza to refrain from
abusing the disciplinary proceedings through filing and maintaining frivolous
administrative complaints against fellow members of the Bar.
Caroline Castaneda Jimenz vs. Atty. Edgar B. Francisco
A.C No. 10548, December 10, 2014

Doctrine: Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith
in the legal profession.

FACTS: Jimenez filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco for multiple violations of te
CPR. In his answer, Atty. Francisco said that Jimenez initially engaged his services in
1998 for the incorporation of Clarion for the purpose of purchasing a residential house
in Forbes Park. He further stated that when the complainant was imprisoned in USA,
Jimenez’s son Marcel and him, asked Atty. Francisco to change ownership of Clarion
shares to avoid attachment. He also claimed that the complainant tasked him to talk
to prospective buyers and to negotiate the sale of the Forbes property.

In the Commissioners report, it was found that Atty. Francisco is guilty of violations
of the CPR and recommended that he be suspended for 1 year from practice of law.
The IBP-COG adopted and approved in toto the findings and recommendations of the
CBD against Atty. Francisco.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco is guilty of violating CPR and the
lawyer’s oath.

HELD: YES. Atty. Francisco is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct
when he admitted to having allowed his corporate client, Clarion to actively
misrepresent to the SEC the significant matters regarding its corporate purpose and
subsequently, its corporate shareholdings. Despite the assertions that these were in
accordance to Jimenez’s wishes, or pursuant to complainant’s misrepresentation, his
acts of drafting, or at the very least permitting untruthful statements is a clear
violation of the CPR and the lawyer’s oath.

Time and again, the Court has reminded the lawyers that their support for the cause
of their clients should never be attained at the expense of the truth and justice. While
lawyers owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his clients, full devotion to his genuine
interests, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so
only within the bounds of the law.
Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod
GR No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Doctrine: Practice of law is consisting of the rendition of services requiring

the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve
the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces
the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of
all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients.

It is any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino to the position
of Chairman of COMELEC, however, such nomination was opposed by Renato
Cayetano on the ground that Monsod was not qualified because he does not possess
the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years. The Commission on Appointment confirmed the nomination of Monsod and
he subsequently took his oath of office and assumed the role of Chairman of
COMELEC. To challenge the validity of the confirmation by Commission on
Appointment, Cayetano filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition praying
for nullification of the appointment of Monsod.

Monsod is a member of Philippine Bar having passed the bar examination of 1960.
He worked for World Bank Group as operations officer and was acquainted with the
laws of member-countries. Then, he also worked with Meralco Group as chief
executive officer of an investment bank. He also rendered services as legal economic
consultant or chief executive officer of various companies, and several more
companies.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT MONSOD POSSESSED THE REQUIRED

QUALIFICATIONS AS CHAIRMAN OF COMELEC.

HELD: YES. Monsod possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. In

the case of Philippine Lawyer’s Association vs Agrava, it states that the practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. In general, all advice
given to the clients and all the actions for them in matters connected with the law
have been held to constitute law practice.
Atty. Monsod may not be engaged in practice of law through litigation but he has
been deemed to be practicing law through various responsibilities such as lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, a lawyer-negotiator. These
satisfies the constitutional requirement of engaging in the practice of law for at least
ten years.

The petition filed by Cayetano is dismissed and Atty. Monsod is allowed to perform
the duties of Chairman of COMELEC.
AM No. 21-06-20-SC
RE: Distributing Social Media Posts of Lawyers/Law Professors
April 11, 2023

Doctrine: Lawyer should be conscious with the use of his social media
accounts. The lawyers’ right to privacy, especially when it comes to their
social media account, is limited. They cannot use this right as shield against
any liability. The right to privacy has limited application to online activities
of lawyers.

FACTS: A screenshot of the online post and conversation of Attorney Ernesto

Tabujara III, Atty. Noel Antay, Jr., Atty. Israel P. Calderon, Atty. Morgan Rosales
Nicanor, and Atty. Joseph Marion Navarette which the main topic of the online
exchange were certain members of the LGBTQIA+ community and judges in Taguig
City. Though there were no names mentioned, the comments were made degrading
and shameful manner. Thus, the court motu proprio required the lawyers to show
cause why no administrative charges should be filed against them.

They comply with the said orders and sent their explanation to the court apologizing
with what they said in the screenshot which appears to be remorseful. The court
forwarded the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation,
report, and recommendation.

The OBC recommends that the lawyers concerned be admonished.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWYERS CAN INVOKE THEIR RIGHT TO

PRIVACY AS SHIELD AGAISNT ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY.

HELD: NO. The lawyers’ right to privacy vis-à-vis online activity not absolute. In the
case of Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra, the court explains that: Before one can have
an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity-in this case,
Facebook- it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain
posts private, through employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit
its visibility. However, there is no assurance that the same or other digital content
that he uploads or publishes in Facebook will be safeguarded as within the confines
of privacy.

The applicable provision of CPR in this case is Rule 7.03 which 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. Lawyers, as keeper of public faith, are burdened
with high degree of social responsibility and hence, must handle their personal affairs
with great caution. Inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory language of lawyers,
even in the private sphere, are still within reach of this Court’s disciplinary authority.
MARIA VICTORIA BELO-HENARES vs ATTY. ROBERTO “AGREE” GUEVARRA

A.C NO. 11394, DECEMBER 1, 2016

DOCTRINE: Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in

their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of
probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification
for admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege.

FACTS: The complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Guevarra for violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Rule
8.01 of Canon 8; and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
The ground for filing of the complaint is the series of post of Atty. Guevarra in his
Facebook account which is insulting and verbally abusing the complainant. The
complaint further alleged that the respondent posted remarks on his Facebook
account that were intended to destroy and ruin the reputation of the complainant as
well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for no justifiable reason.
In addition, the respondent also posted remarks that allegedly threatened
complainant with criminal conviction without factual basis and proof.

In the defense of the respondent, he claimed that the complaint was filed in violation
of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by
the complainant were private remarks on his private Facebook account, which was
meant to be shared with his friends only. In addition, he also said that such was made
pursuance to freedom of speech.

The IBP recommends the respondent be suspended for a period of one year from
practice of law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with
more severely. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report
and recommendation of IBP-CBD.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN INVOKE HIS RIGHT TO

PRIVACY.

HELD: NO. Facebook is a voluntary social network to which members subscribe and
submit information. Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to
regulate accessibility of user’s profile, as well as information uploaded by user.
Consequently, before one can have expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity, it is necessary that the user manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto
or limits its visibility. In this case, the respondent failed to offer evidence that he
took the necessary steps available to protect his posts or that he restricted its privacy
to a select few.
However, the court also states that, the restriction of privacy of one’s Facebook posts
to “Friends” does not guarantee absolute protection from prying eyes of another user
who does not belong to one’s circle of friends. Freedom of speech and expression,
like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute.
MAURICIO ULEP vs THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
BAR MATTER NO. 553, JUNE 17, 1993

DOCTRINE: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court.
It includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured.

FACT: Legal Clinic sent out advertisements to inquire about secret marriage and
divorce in Guam and annulment, they also giving free books on Guam divorce. Ulep
contends that the advertisement made by The Legal Clinic is unethical, demeaning of
the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity
of the members o the bar, hence, he filed a petition to order the respondent to cease
and desist from issuing such advertisements.

In their answer, respondent claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in
the rendering of “legal support services” through paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines. In addition, assuming that the services
advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
in the light of a case decided by the US Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE RESPONDENT

CONSTITUTES PRACTICE OF LAW.

HELD: YES. The acts of the respondent constitute practice of law. The practice of law
covers a wide range of activities in and out of court, while the services being offered
by the respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow,
such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient
management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials,
these will suffice to justify. It is clear that respondent corporation gives out legal
information to laymen and lawyers. With its attorneys and so-called paralegals, it will
necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or
her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law.
That is what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his
talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his
talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The only
exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple
professional card.
THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS vs ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT

A.C NO. L-1117, MARCH 20, 1994

DOCTRINE: It is highly unethical for a lawyer to advertise his talents or skills

as a merchant advertises his wares. The most worth and effective
advertisement possible, even for young lawyer, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

FACTS: Respondent is charged with malpractice for having published an

advertisement in the Sunday Tribute that helps people to secure marriage license. In
his answer, respondent, at first denied having published the said advertisement but
subsequently, he admitted having caused such publication. Respondent prayed for
the indulgence and mercy of the Court, promising not to repeat such professional
misconduct in the future.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ADVERTISEMENT WAS A FLAGRANT

VIOLATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.

HELD: YES. It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant

violation of the professional ethics of the profession of the respondent. Section 25 of
Rule 17 expressly provides, “the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.”

It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant

advertises his wares. Law profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself
and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by
advertising his services or offering them to the public.

As member of the Bar, he defies the temple of justice with mercenary activities as
the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah.

The Court decided that the respondent should be reprimanded.

Enrico Velasco vs. Atty. Berteni C. Causing
A.C No. 12883, March 2, 2021

Doctrine: A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at

one time and a mere citizen at anther. Regardless of whether a lawyer is
representing his client in court, acting as a supposed spokesperson outside
of it, or mere practicing his right to press freedom as “journalist-blogger,”
his duties to the society and his ethical obligations as a member of the bar
remain unchanged.

FACTS: Complainant is the petitioner in a civil case for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage with Nina Ricci Laudato, while Atty. Causing is the counsel of Laudato.
Atty. Causing made a Facebook post about Enrico Velasco stating that he is
polygamous husband attaching to the post is the copy of the complaint of Velasco,
and because of that Velasco filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty. Causing. In his
answer, he admitted that he did publish the subject post in his Facebook account and
sent the link to complainant’s son. However, he denied harassing the complainant
and insisted that he was only performing his duties as the “spokesman-lawyer” of his
client. He also averred that he is a journalist-blogger and he merely exercised his
constitutional right to press freedom.

In the IBP report and recommendation, they found out that Atty. Causing breached
the rule on the privacy and confidentiality of Family Court proceedings, and they
recommended that the respondent be suspended from practice of law for a period of
1 year.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable

for publishing the subject post in his Facebook account.

HELD: YES. The court adopts the finding and recommendation of IBP but it modifies
the penalty to be imposed upon Atty. Causing. In this case, Atty. Causing clearly
violated Section 12 of RA 8369 or the Family Courts Act of 1997, which prohibits the
publication or disclosure of the records of the Family Court cases. This is a clear
violation of Canon 1 as well as Canon 13 and Rule 12.02 of the CPR as the subject of
the post not only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case, but
also included his own, strongly-worded opinion regarding the complainant’s character
and the circumstances surrounding the case.

Wherefore, the court finds Atty. Bertini Causing guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 8.01
Canon 12, Rule 13.02, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the CPR and he is suspended
from practice of law for period of 1 year and a stern warning that a repetition of such
will be dealt with more severely.
Rodco Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation vs. Atty. Napoleon A.
Concepcion
A.C No. 7963, June 29, 2001

Doctrine: The moral standards of the legal profession imposes a duty upon
lawyers to act with the highest degree of professionalism, decency, and
nobility in the course of their practice of law. Anything less than that calls
for a member of the Bar to be held accountable in order to preserve the
dignity of the legal profession and the proper administration of justice.

FACTS: RODCO is a domestic corporation engaged in consultancy services for

repatriated seafarers. RODCO and respondent entered into a Contract for Legal
Services wherein Atty. Napoleon would be engaged to provide for legal services to its
clients. It is explicitly provided under their contact that the relationship between the
parties as that of a lawyer-client relationship, and that the communication between
them is considered as privilege. Several actions of the respondent prompted RODCO
to file the instant case, as well as the criminal case for estafa, other deceits, and
qualified theft.

In the Report and Recommendation of IBP, it recommends the dismissal of the

administrative complaint for lack of merit. RODCO filed a motion for reconsideration,
then, the resolution of dismissal was changed into disbarment, on the ground that
the respondent was found guilty of violating his attorney’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE DISBARRED

HELD: YES. In the case as bar, respondent’s actions amount to unethical conduct
and calls for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary authority. ny misconduct affecting
the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member
of the Bar justifies disciplinary action. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or 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.

A lawyer, as an officer of the court, is "like the court itself an instrument or agency
to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts to which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice.

It is clear that this duty is lost on respondent. His repeated disregard of the
proscription against influence peddling proves his unfitness for the legal profession.
Based on Tajaran's statements, respondent had implied LA Concepcion, his wife,
could be bribed into ruling in her favor, or that he can sway the case if only Tajaran
would be willing to counter the alleged offer of money by the opposing counsels. Such
conduct from a lawyer is reprehensible. Respondent not only attempted to solicit a
bribe from a client, he undermined the integrity of the labor tribunal by making it
appear that its arbiters were susceptible to influence and bribery.
Jerry M. Palencia vs. Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan, Atty. Gerard M. Linsangan,
and Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya
A.C No. 10557, July 10, 2018

Doctrine: The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the

performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
possess good moral character. Thus, the violation of the lawyer's oath
and/or breach of the ethics of the legal profession embodied in the CPR may,
depending on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts, result in the suspension or disbarment of a member of
the Bar.

FACTS: Complainant was an overseas Filipino worker seafarer who was seriously
injured during work when he fell into the elevator shaft of the vessel. After the initial
treatment, complainant was discharged and flown to the Philippines for continued
medical treatment. While he was confined at Manila Doctors, one Moises and Jesherel,
paralegals in respondents’ law office, approached complainant. They convinced him
to engage the services of respondents’ law office in order to file suit for damages
against his employers for indemnity.

Through the efforts of the respondent, complainant was able to get paid by his
employer. Thereafter, negotiations led to a settlement award in favor of complainant.
Then, respondent tendered an amount to complainant which the later refused, he
then, contested the amount comprised of the expenses and attorney’s fees deducted.

Then, complainant filed a letter-complaint with the IBP. He requested that an

investigation be conducted and the corresponding disciplinary action be imposed
upon respondents for committing the following unethical acts: (1) refusing to remit
the amount collected in the Singapore case worth US$95,000.00, and in offering only
US$20,756.05; (2) depositing complainant's money into their own account; and (3)
engaging in "ambulance chasing" by deploying their agents to convince complainant
to hire respondents' services while the former was still bedridden in the hospital.

After proceedings, the IBP-CBD ruled that respondent violated the canons of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE

UNETHICAL.

HELD: YES. The practice of law is a profession and not a business.Lawyers are
reminded to avoid at all times any act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the
public in the legal profession as a noble calling, including, among others, the manner
by which he makes known his legal services.
To reiterate, there is no basis, and would even be unjust under the circumstances, to
reduce the penalty imposed on respondents. Quite the contrary, respondents should
find themselves so fortunate that for all their exploits, including their ambulance
chasing, this Court would only impose a two-year suspension.

WHEREFORE, we find respondents Attys. Pedro L. Linsangan and Gerard M.

Linsangan GUILTY. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondents Attys. Pedro Linsangan
and Gerard Linsangan from the practice of law for TWO YEARS effective upon finality
of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Atty. Glenda M.
Linsangan-Binoya is DISMISSED.
Azucena C. Tabao vs. Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba
A.C No. 9269, March 13, 2019

Doctrine: Notarization is not an empty meaningless routinary act, but one

invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private
document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity.

FACTS: Complainant together with her siblings, charged Jester Repulda, Edmund
Elcarte Noel Cinco, Paul Cinco, Marlin Cinco, and Marie Cinco of perjury. According to
the complainant, Atty. Lacaba notarized the two-page Counter-affidavit executed by
them without the personal appearance of Marlin and Marie. The said document shows
that somebody else signed for Marlin and Marie, and it is impossible for the latter to
appear before Atty. Lacaba since during the execution of the said affidavit, Marlin was
in Dubai working while Marie was in Cebu City.

In his defense, Atty. Lacaba did not deny complainant’s charges, he claimed that the
investigating prosecutor in the perjury case was informed that the two affiants were
“physically absent” but could be contacted through telephone and video call via
internet. He said that he notarized the affidavit by contacting Marlin and Marie by
video call using the laptop of Felicitas.

In the report and recommendation of IBP, they found Atty. Lacaba guilty of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR and Rules IV and VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice
and recommends that Atty. Lacaba be suspended for a period of 3 months and the
revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt
the findings of fact and recommendation of IBP.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lacaba violated the Rules on Notarial Practice.

HELD: YES. A notary public is not allowed to notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
document is the party's free act and deed.

The Court likewise adopts the recommended penalty of the IBP Board of Governors.
The penalty of suspension from the practice of law for the period of six months,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of 2 years,
and revocation of his notarial commission.
Romeo A. Zarcilla and Marita Bumanlag vs. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr.
A.C No. 7186, March 13, 2018

Doctrine: A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person
who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are
stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed
the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain
that the document is the party's free act or deed.

FACTS: Zarcilla executed an Affidavit-complaint against Atty. Quesada and

complainant Bumanlag for falsification of public documents. He alleged that
Bumanlag conspired with spouses Maximo Quesada and Gloria Quesada and Atty.
Quesada to falsify a Deed of Sale by making it appear that his parents sold a parcel
of land in favor of the spouses despite the knowledge that his parents were already
dead.

In a resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Union held that

Bumanlag only to undergo trial. All other respondents including Atty. Quesada who
did not file his counter-affidavit were exonerated for insufficiency of evidence.

Atty. Quesada failed to comply with numerous resolutions of the court and to pay fine
imposed upon him. Then, the IBP-CBD recommended that respondent Atty. Quesada
be disbarred from practice of law which was later on adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors.

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

HELD: YES. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. In
the instant case, the allegations of falsification or forgery against Atty. Quesada must
be competently proved because falsification or forgery cannot be presumed.

However, in this case, it is clear that Atty. Quesada violated the Notarial law for his
act of notarizing the: (1) Deed of Sale, and (2) Joint Affidavit. A notary public should
not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same
person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents
and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who
actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to
verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain
that the document is the party's free act or deed. Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing
the deed of sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a fraud.