Chairmans Case Digests (Ethics)

Jonathan Parungao v. Atty.
Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071 (March 11, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Responsibility; To the Clients
Doctrine
The third test — with references to "new relation," "former client," and "previous
employment" — specifically applies to a situation wherein the professional engagement
with the former client was already terminated when the lawyer entered into a new
engagement with the present client. It bears to stress that this test explicitly requires the
lawyer's use against his former client of "confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment."
Facts
Atty. Lacuanan served as Jonathan’s counsel in several transactions. Parungao and his wife,
Mary Grace, encountered serious problems --- a criminal complaint for concubinage,
physical injury and threat was filed against Mary Grace. Later on Parungao found out that
Atty. Lacuanan attended hearings as counsel for Mary Grace. Hence, Parungao filed a
disbarment complaint against Atty. Lacuanan for representing conflicting interests in
violations of Canon 15.03 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Parungao
argued in the alternative that even if there was already a termination of the attorney-client
relationship between him and Atty. Lacuanan, the latter still committed the violations he
was being charged with in the Disbarment Complaint as the lawyer's duty to protect his
client's confidences extended beyond the expiration of the professional employment. He
had confided to Atty. Lacuanan personal matters which the latter could use against him in
Mary Grace's criminal complaint and civil case.
Issue
Whether the act of Atty. Lacuanan in representing Mary Grace posed as a conflict of interest
thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held + Ratio
No, Atty. Lacuanan is not guilty of representing conflicting interests as there was no longer
an existing attorney-client relationship between Atty. Lacuanan and Parungao.
The third test — with references to "new relation," "former client," and "previous
employment" — specifically applies to a situation wherein the professional engagement
with the former client was already terminated when the lawyer entered into a new
engagement with the present client. It bears to stress that this test explicitly requires the
lawyer's use against his former client of "confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment."
Page 1
The Court further categorically declared in Palm v. Iledan, Jr. that " [a] lawyer's immutable
duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer's
employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to
protect the client's interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client
and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated." Hence,
for there to be conflicting interests when a former client is involved, the following
circumstances must concur: (a) the lawyer is called upon in his present engagement to make
use against a former client confidential information which was acquired through their
connection or previous employment, and (b) the present engagement involves transactions
that occurred during the lawyer's employment with the former client and matters that the
lawyer previously handled for the said client.
Page 2
In Re: Garra
A.M. No. 2019-14-SC (February 10, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary
Doctrine
A civil servant having an illicit relationship with a woman not his wife is within the
purview of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" under Civil Service Laws.
Facts
The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) found out that Respondent Mr. Cloyd D. Garra
(Garra), Judicial Staff Employee II, Mediation, Planning and Research Division, PHILJA and
Staff Driver, is legally married to Melissa M. Osbual. The said spouse was also declared in
the Home Development Mutual Fund and Pag-IBIG Member’s Data Form and his SALN
from 2006 to 2012. However, it was omitted in Garra’s 2006 to 2011 SALNs, including his
SALN beginning 2013. Garra claims that he and Osbual had 2 children together, they have
not cohabited with each other since 2003. As Osbual allegedly abandoned Garra for another
man. It was in 2005 that Garra met Sampaga who remained his common-law wife and who
assisted him in the rearing and care of their children and his children with Osbual.
Issue
Whether the acts of Garra of cohabiting with another woman while married and omitting
such information in his SALN constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct, and dishonesty.
Held + Ratio
Yes, the acts of Garra of cohabiting with another woman while married and omitting such
information in his SALN constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct, and dishonesty.
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 15, Series of 2010, which
provides:
Section 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct. — Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct refers to
an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the
society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.
The same Circular highlights that "[d]isgraceful and [i]mmoral conduct may be committed
in a scandalous or discreet manner, within or out of the workplace." A man having an illicit
relationship with a woman not his wife is within the purview of "disgraceful and immoral
conduct" under Civil Service Laws. Garra's deliberate omission of this fact in his SALNs for
several years constitutes Dishonesty. "Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or
distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive,
or betray and an intent to violate the truth.
Page 3
Portuguese, Jr. v. Atty. Centro
A.C. No. 12875 (January 26, 2021) | Hernando, J

Doctrine
A lawyer is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's
cause with diligence, care and devotion. This is because a lawyer owes fidelity to his
client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.
Facts
Atty. Centro was Portuguese’s counsel in a civil case. At the termination of proceedings, the
parties were required to file a memoranda. After several follow-ups, Atty. Centro informed
Portuguese that the memoranda was filed in court. However, Portuguese was served a copy
of a Notice by a sheriff, giving them three days to comply with the Writ of Execution in
connection with the civil case. This was the first time Portuguese learned of the rendition of
a judgment in the said case. Portuguese claimed the following: 1) Atty. Centro received a
copy of the Decision, but the latter never advised him about it; 2) he did not file any
pleading to appeal or question the RTC’s decision; 3) he did not actually file a
Memorandum contrary to the latter’s representation; 4) he did not file a pleading to contest
the Motion for Execution; 5) he did not notify him of the scheduled hearing on the Motion
for Execution; and 6) the resolution granting the Motion for Execution.
Issue
Whether the inaction of Atty. Centro violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held + Ratio
Atty. Centro's unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated the
Lawyer's Oath as well as the CPR. He casually set aside a legal matter that was entrusted to
him and which deserved his full attention and diligence. He was grossly negligent of his
duty as counsel and was manifestly disinterested in his client's cause. He must be reminded
that as a lawyer, he "is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his
client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. This is because a lawyer owes fidelity to his
client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him."
Page 4
Petelo v. Atty. Rivera
A.C. No. 10408 (October 16, 2019) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To Society; To the Legal Profession; To the Clients
Doctrine
By allowing a non-lawyer to sign and submit pleadings before the court, a lawyer makes a
mockery of the law practice which is deeply imbued with public interest; they totally
ignore the fact that their act of filing a suit will have a corresponding impact and effect on
society, particularly on the life and property rights of the person or persons they wittingly
involved in the litigation.
Facts
Petelo’s sister, Fe, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Red Dragon Builders
Corporation for the construction of a townhouse on the lot owned by Fe. Sps. Manalansan
(owner of Red Dragon Builders) persuaded Petelo into surrendering the original copy of the
TCT which they eventually used as collateral for the loan they contracted with World
Partner’s Bank without the knowledge and consent of Petelo. Eventually, there was an
institution of foreclosure proceedings against the mortgage due to nonpayment by the
spouses. When secured a certified true copy, he was surprised to find that there was an
entry of lis pendens pertaining to a civil case for declaration of nullity or real estate
mortgage, promissory note, certificate of sale and foreclosure proceedings with damages
filed by Atty. Rivera on Fe and Petelo’s behalf. Hence, an administrative complaint was filed
charging Atty. Rivera with negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer because
he did not verify the identity of the person he was dealing with prior to the filing of the civil
suit. Atty. Rivera admitted that he works with a disbarred lawyer and allows him to sign on
minor pleadings. Further, they would use Atty. Rivera’s signature and details.
Issue
Whether the act of Atty. Rivera of allowing persons other than himself to use his signature
in signing papers and pleadings a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Rivera’s act of allowing persons sign other than himself violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility specifically Rule 9.01, Canon 9; Rule 1.10, Canon 1; and Rule
10.01, Canon 10.
Atty. Rivera's act of allowing persons other than himself to use his signature in signing
papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-lawyers to practice law. Thus, it has been said
that "[t]he title of 'attorney' is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree
in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is
they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction" (Alawi v. Alauya).
Page 5
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and is reserved only for those
who meet the twin standards of legal proficiency and morality. It is so delicately imbued
with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of this Court to control and regulate it
in order to protect and promote the public welfare" (Pantanosas, Jr. v. Pamatong).
By allowing a non-lawyer to sign and submit pleadings before the court, Atty. Rivera made
a mockery of the law practice which is deeply imbued with public interest; he totally
ignored the fact that his act of filing a suit will have a corresponding impact and effect on
the society, particularly on the life and property rights of the person or persons he wittingly
involved in the litigation, in this case, Fe and Petelo. Atty. Rivera's cavalier act of allowing
someone to use his signature and his "details" in the complaint have concomitant and
significant effects on the property rights of Fe and Petelo.
Page 6
Atty. Perito v. Atty. Baterina
A.C. No. 12631 (July 8, 2020) | Hernando, J.

Doctrine
A lawyer “should present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of
his client's cause, regardless of his own personal views.In the full discharge of his duties
to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the
judge or the general public." (Legarda v. Court of Appeals)
Facts
Atty. Perito charged respondents with pursuing a losing and dismissed case or endlessly
persecuting the Bracamontes in the kidnapping case, and for filing a baseless disbarment
complaint against him grounded on suspicion. Respondents argue that a petition for review
and petition for certiorari which they filed in the kidnapping case were remedies which can
be availed of as a matter of law in behalf of their client and that resorting to such remedies
cannot be a ground for disbarment.
Issue
Whether or not the act of filing the petition for review and petition for certiorari of
respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held + Ratio
No, the act of filing a petition for review and petition for certiorari is not a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The remedies which Attys. Baterina and Besid pursued and exhausted were sanctioned by
the applicable rules and were intended solely to advance their clients' interest in the
kidnapping case. They did not violate Canon 11, Rule 11.03 31 when they filed a certiorari
petition before the CA in order to assail the issuances of the RTC. In fact, their actions are
supported by Canons 17 and 19 of the CPR.
Indeed, "[a] lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to
the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the
law. He should present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his
client's cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his
client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or
the general public." (Legarda v. Court of Appeals).
Page 7
Partsch v. Atty. Vitorillo
A.C. No. 10897. (January 4, 2022) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To the Legal Profession; To the Clients
Doctrine
The Constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine private lands is
too basic a rule for even non-attorneys to be unaware of. A lawyer is presumed to know
this.
Facts
Partsch, a Swiss national, desired to purchase a piece of beachfront real property. Partsch
sought Atty. Vitorillo. Atty. Vitorillo claimed ownership over the beachfront lot. The 100
square meter of the subject lot were titled under his name. The remaining 700 were still
pending registration. Atty. Vitorillo offered to sell the subject property. Partsch tendered a
check as partial payment. Atty. Vitorillo promised to draw the deed of absolute sale after
three months. However, two years have passed, no absolute sale was drawn and no
reimbursement was paid despite formal demand.
Issue
Whether the act of Atty. Vitorillo in selling the land to a Swiss national is a violation of the
Held + Ratio
Yes, the act of Atty. Vitorillo in selling the land to a Swiss national is a violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility specifically Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7.
On the Constitutional prohibition, the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine

private lands is too basic a rule for even non-attorneys to be unaware of. As a lawyer, Atty.
Vitorillo is presumed to know this. Despite being equipped with such knowledge, Atty.
Vitorillo still marketed the subject property for sale to Partsch, a Swiss national. More telling
of Atty. Vitorillo's ethical obliquity is his questionable instruction to Partsch to just proceed
with the fencing of the subject property without any acceptable guarantee of Atty. Vitorillo's
title thereto. Again, Atty. Vitorillo had not refuted this serious allegation. He is deemed to
have acted in contravention of Canon 1, Rule 1.02 — CPR's proscription against counseling
activities aimed at defiance of the law.
On the sale of subject property despite of pendency of ownership, what Atty. Vitorillo had
was at best an inchoate right, anchored on mere hope that the subject property shall
someday be transferred to his name. A person possessing only expectancies of ownership
Page 8
over a piece of property cannot and should not legally hold oneself out as the absolute
owner thereof. This carries heftier relevance if such person is one well-versed in law like
Atty. Vitorillo. This expectancy was admittedly conditioned on the issuance of a final court
ruling cancelling the title over the main lot in favor of his clients, who were the ones directly
claiming ownership over the subject property in their own right. However, Atty. Vitorillo
conveniently forgot that courts decide cases depending on the relevant law and evidence
presented. He fed Partsch false assurances that the trial court would grant his cause. He
even openly blamed the trial court's supposed delay in resolving the pending ownership
dispute over the main lot and its eventual dismissal of the case that prejudiced his
expectancy. In so doing, Atty. Vitorillo demeaned the integrity of legal processes and
tarnished the image of impartiality of the courts that he had professionally vowed to
espouse, per Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR.
Page 9
Pagdanganan v. Atty. Plata
A.C. No. 12701 (February 26, 2020) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To the Legal Profession; To the Clients
Doctrine
Gross misconduct has been defined as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly unlawful
conduct on the part of the person involved in the administration of justice, conduct that is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Such
conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, but
does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.
Facts
Atty. Plata is the legal counsel of Eustaquio (owner of a land). Pagdanganan is a member of
the Samahang Maralita ng Sitio Bato-Bato Neighborhood Association Inc (SAMANAI).
SAMANAI entered into a contract to sell with Eustaquio. However, SAMANAI failed to pay
the remaining balance. Thus, Eustaquio filed an unlawful detainer complaint against all
persons claiming rights under the land including Pagdanganan. The Municipal Trial Court
rendered a decision in favor of Eustaquio. Atty. Plata admitted various civil, criminal and
administrative cases were filed by Eustaquio against Atty. Equila and Morales, such as
Grave Threats, Qualified Theft, Disbarment and Revocation of Notarial Commission, all of
which are still pending in their respective jurisdictions. Atty. Equila submitted a
Sinumpaang Salaysay signed by different members of SAMANAI except Pagdanganan.
Instead of his signature, Loyola signed her name above Pagdanganan. Atty. Plata filed a
case for Perjury with Damages against the signatories including Pagdanganan. Thus,
Pagdanganan filed a complaint against Atty. Plata as he was not a signatory to the
Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Issue
Whether the act of Atty. Plata of filing a case against Pagdanganan despite numerous case
still pending constitutes misconduct and a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held + Ratio
Yes, the act of Atty. Plata of filing a case against Pagdanganan after admitting that there are
various criminal and administrative cases still pending against him and other members of
SAMANAI and act of reserving in his Answer to the administrative case that he will file,
commence, and/or institute another perjury case against Pagdanganan specifically
constitute gross misconduct. It violated Canon 8, Rule 10.03, Rule 12. 02, and Rule 12.04.
Gross misconduct has been defined as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly unlawful
conduct on the part of the person involved in the administration of justice, conduct that is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Such
conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, but
Page 10
does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. Applying Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, the acts are inexcusable, shameful and flagrantly unlawful, all of which
were clearly motivated by an intentional purpose to harass and intimidate Pagdanganan.
Page 11
OCA v. Alauya
A.M. No. SCC-15-21-P (December 9, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary
Doctrine
It is well-settled that Clerks of Court are tasked with the collections of court funds. As they
are not authorized to keep funds in their custody, they are duty bound to immediately
deposit with authorized government depositories their collections on various funds. Such
functions are highlighted by OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 38 and 113-2004 and Administrative
Circular No. 35-2004 which mandate Clerks of Court to timely deposit judiciary collections
as well as to submit monthly financial reports on the same.
Facts
Alauya, the Clerk of Court of Shari’a Circuit Court (SCC) was preventively suspended for
the following actions: removal of office records, financial and case records; failure to transfer
some of the court case records in the office despite instructions and memorandum from the
presiding judge; skipping 4 pages of official receipts; detaching 3 copies of ORs and the
unused original copy of OR from the booklet; failure to report and remit the collections;
antedating ORs; and non-submission of monthly financial reports.
Issue
Whether the act of Alauya in failing to do his duties constitute as Gross Neglect of Duty,
Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct
Held + Ratio
Yes, the respondent failed to perform his duties with the degree of diligence and
competence expected of a Clerk of Court. Clerks of Court perform vital functions in the
administration of justice. Their functions are imbued with public interest that any act which
would compromise, or tend to compromise, that degree of diligence and competence
expected of them in the exercise of their functions would destroy public accountability and
effectively weaken the faith of the people in the justice system. Notably, as the designated
custodian of the court's properties, it was incumbent on respondent to ensure that relevant
rules are followed for their proper safekeeping and organization. In this regard, Section 14,
Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides that "[n]o record shall be taken from the clerk's
office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by these rules." It is
well-settled that Clerks of Court are tasked with the collections of court funds. As they are
not authorized to keep funds in their custody, they are duty bound to immediately deposit
with authorized government depositories their collections on various funds. Such functions
are highlighted by OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 38 and 113-2004 and Administrative Circular
No. 35-2004 which mandate Clerks of Court to timely deposit judiciary collections as well as
to submit monthly financial reports on the same. These circulars are mandatory in nature
and are designed to promote full accountability for funds received by the courts. Notably,
any failure or even delay in the remittance of collection has been perceived as a serious
Page 12
breach of duty to the public. These acts deprive the courts of the opportunity to use the fund
as well as the interest thereon which may have been earned if the amounts were timely
and/or properly remitted or deposited to authorized government depositories.
Page 13
Maulana v. Judge Noel, Jr.
A.M. No. RTJ-21-006 (March 15, 2021) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Judicial Ethics; Qualities; Competence and Diligence
Doctrine
It is not the duty of the respondent to personally verify the authenticity of the Certification
of the FEO, or the firearm licenses of the complainant. Neither is respondent enjoined by
the rules to travel from General Santos City to Camp Crame, Quezon City to do the same.
Not only does the issuance thereof demonstrate his gross ignorance of the rules, this also
casts doubt on his integrity and probity as a member of the Judiciary.
Facts
This resolves the Complaint filed by Zahara Pendatun Maulana (complainant) against
respondent Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. (respondent). The complainant was charged with
violation of RA 10591 after several firearms were allegedly found in her possession.
However later on the Office of the prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against her
for lack of evidence and/or probable cause. Complainant's counsel thus filed a Motion to
Release Seized Items praying for the release of the seized firearms to their respective
owners. Prior to the scheduled hearing of the said motion, respondent Judge allegedly
directed complainant to proceed to his chambers and asked her to shoulder the amount of
P300,000.00 representing the expenses that will be incurred which he, his court personnel,
and the government prosecutor will incur when they travel to Camp Crame, Manila, to
personally verify licenses for the subject firearms. During the actual hearing, the
complainant's counsel, instead, moved for the withdrawal of the Motion to Release Seized
Items. In open court, however, respondent Judge allegedly made it appear that it was the
complainant who moved for respondent Judge and his court personnel to have the licenses
personally verified, and offered to shoulder their travel expenses.
Issue
Whether the act of the respondent judge breached the standards of the court, and committed
gross ignorance of the rules when he issued such order.
Held + Ratio
Yes, the respondent judge breached the standards of the court, and committed gross
ignorance of the rules when he issued such order.
OCA Circular No. 11-2011, citing Del Rosario vs. People, provides that certifications issued by
the FEO Records Section are sufficient proof of the fact of possession or non-possession of a
valid license to own or possess firearms or explosives in the offense of Illegal Possession of
Firearms. OCA Circular No. 11-2011 further states that personal appearances of FEO records
personnel is not required in order to establish the authenticity of FEO-issued certifications.
This only means that FEO-issued certifications are sufficient evidence, and thus, should be
Page 14
accepted by the courts in determining the presence or absence of a valid license or permit to
own or possess firearms.
Accordingly, it is not the duty of respondent to personally verify the authenticity of the
September 14, 2017 Certification of the FEO, or the firearm licenses of complainant and
Brahim. Neither is respondent enjoined by the rules to travel from General Santos City to
Camp Crame, Quezon City to do the same. Not only does the issuance thereof demonstrate
his gross ignorance of the rules, this also casts doubt on his integrity and probity as a
member of the Judiciary.
Page 15
Atty. Manzano v. Atty. Rivera
A.C. No. 12173 (November 3, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Notarial practice
Doctrine
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear. Only a person who is
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Facts
Lupo G. Tan, Rema Tan-Manzano, and Sonia G. Tan, represented by Atty. Manzano, filed a
complaint for accion publiciana against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, Arcelie Bayaca (Bayaca),
and Marlon Urata (Urata). The Sheriff reported that he failed to personally serve a copy of
the complaint to defendants Bayaca who was abroad and Urata who was in Manila.
However, the Answer of the defendants was signed by Pando and Bloza, as well as by
Bayaca and Urata. The Answer was notarized on the same date by Atty. Rivera in
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Atty. Manzano discovered that Atty. Rivera was not
commissioned as a notary public in the Province of Cagayan during the time that he
notarized the Answer. Thus, Atty. Manzano filed a petition for disbarment against Atty.
Rivera for malpractice, dishonesty, and falsification of public documents.
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Rivera violated the Rules on Notarial Practice, Lawyer’s Oath, and the
Held + Ratio
Yes, he violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7. Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice is clear. Only a person who is commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the
commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under
these Rules and the Rules of Court.
In this case, the Certification issued by the office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Tuguegarao City duly showed that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a notary public at
the time he notarized the Answer. Thus, he is liable for gross violation of the Notarial Law.
This is in blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. It
likewise constitutes a transgression of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that, "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." He also transgressed Canon 7 of the CPR, which mandates
that every lawyer shall "uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,"
and Rule 7.03 which provides 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.
Page 16
Therefore, Atty. Rivera was suspended from the practice of law for three years and
perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.
Page 17
Villanueva v. Alentajan
AC No. 12161 (August 8, 2020) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To the Courts
Doctrine
In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Alentjan violated Canon 1 of the CPR directs
lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice,and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.
Rule 10.3, Canon 10 which mandates lawyers to observe the rules of procedures and to not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his/her
client, but not at the expense of the truth and the administration of justice. The filing of
multiple cases constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends
to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice. He likewise violated Rule
12.02 which prohibits a lawyer from filing multiple cases arising from the same cause, and
Rule 12.04 which prohibits the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes.
Facts
Erlinda Marquez, on her personal behalf and as attorney-in-fact of Bienvenido Marquez,
filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings, certificate of sale, and transfer
certificate of title against the United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation
(COCOLIFE) which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-5629. The trial court, dismissed
the complaint, which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
The Resolution became final and executory on September 22, 2010.
Despite this, the heirs of Bienvenido Marquez, assisted by respondent Atty. Bonifacio A.
Alentajan, filed another complaint for reconveyance and annulment of title with application
for preliminary injunction and prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) against
COCOLIFE and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City with respect to the same property
docketed as Civil Case No. R-QZN-13-02119-CV.
COCOLIFE represented by Guillermo Villanueva (Villanueva) filed a Complaint for

Disbarment against Atty. Alentajan before the IBP. They averred that Atty. Alentajan is
guilty of forum shopping when the verification/certification of the complaint for
reconveyance of title failed to state that Atty. Alentajan's client had already commenced an
action for the same subject property between the same parties and the same issues.
Issues
Whether Atty. Alentajan committed forum shopping in violation of the CPR
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Alentajan committed forum shopping when he filed the Civil Case No.
R-QZN-13-02119-CV despite the finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 in
violation of Canon 1, Rule 10.3 of Canon 10, and Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of Canon 12 of the
CPR.
Page 18
In the present case, the initiating parties and the respondent were the same; there was an
identity of the causes of action (i.e., issue of ownership of the subject real property); and
(there was an identity of the reliefs sought (i.e., a ruling in one case would have resulted in
the resolution of the other, and vice versa). Since the elements of res judicata are present,
Atty. Alentajan committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Case No.
R-QZN-13-02119-CV without indicating that Civil Case No. Q-05-5629 had already become
final and executory. Regardless of the fact that Atty. Alenajan was not the counsel in the
previous case, he knowingly filed another civil case despite the finality of judgment of the
previous case which already resolved the issue of ownership and the validity of foreclosure
of mortgage of the property.
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice contravenes this obligation.
Thus, in engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Alentajan violated Canon 1 of the CPR which
directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice,and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.
Rule 10.3, Canon 10 which mandates lawyers to observe the rules of procedures and to not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his/her
client, but not at the expense of the truth and the administration of justice. The filing of
multiple cases constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice. He likewise violated Rule 12.02
which prohibits a lawyer from filing multiple cases arising from the same cause, and Rule
12.04 which prohibits the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes.
Page 19
Villamor v. Jumao-as
A.C. No. 8111 (Resolution) (February 15, 2022) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To the Client
Doctrine
Acts of contrition will not reduce Atty. Jumao-as' administrative liability to the full extent
that he desires. His violation of the lawyer’s oath is already a permanent dent on his
record. His misdeeds towards Villamor must have put the image of the Bar and its
members in some degree of embarrassment. He may have been forgiven by his
complainant, but the disrepute to the legal profession that he had caused cannot simply be
repaired by a mere warning or serving a short-lived suspension from law practice.
Facts
Atty. Jumao-as was suspended from the practice of law for 2 years for violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Jumao-as was found to
have represented conflicting interests by committing the following acts: he facilitated the
incorporation of AEV Villamor Credit, Inc. (AEV), complainant Adelita S. Villamor
(Villamor)'s lending company; he persuaded Villamor to borrow money from one Debbie Yu
(Yu) to beef up AEV's capital; he left AEV to join 3E's Debt Equity Grant Co. (3E's), a lending
company owned by Yu; he incited AEV's collectors to join Yu’s company; he told AEV's
collectors to remit their collections to 3E's since Villamor owed Yu; and he even sent a
demand letter to Villamor, for and in behalf of Yu, demanding that Villamor pay the amount
she owed Yu.
Atty. Jumao-as filed a Motion to Reduce Penalty from two years to either a stern warning or
a one-month suspension.
Issues
Whether the Motion to Reduce the Penalty should be granted.
Held + Ratio
Yes, the penalty shall be reduced from two years to one year based on jurisprudence where
the Court sanctioned the erring lawyer with a year-long suspension from the practice of law
for advocating conflicting interests. The motion was granted after taking into account Atty.
Jumao-as’ speedy initiative to make amends and take responsibility for the entire debt of
Villamor to Yu. He also expended extraordinary efforts to resolve the corporate scuffles
involving him and complainant Villamor and they have resumed their business dealings on
good terms.
However, these acts of contrition will not reduce Atty. Jumao-as' administrative liability to
the full extent that he desires. His violation of the lawyer’s oath is already a permanent dent
on his record. His misdeeds towards Villamor must have put the image of the Bar and its
members in some degree of embarrassment. He may have been forgiven by his
complainant, but the disrepute to the legal profession that he had caused cannot simply be
repaired by a mere warning or serving a short-lived suspension from law practice. In
reducing the penalty, the Court cited the case of Legaspi v. Atty. Gonzales, where the Court
sanctioned the erring lawyer with a year-long suspension from the practice of law for
advocating conflicting interests.
Page 20
Valmonte vs. Quesada
AC No. 12487, (December 4, 2019) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers
Doctrine
Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that can be imposed regarding his privilege
to practice law. However, the Court can still give the corresponding penalty only for the
sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC),
which should be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer file a petition to lift
disbarment.
Facts
Fe Valmonte is the wife of Marcelo Valmonte, who was charged with the murder of her
brother Manolo Estalila. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. entered his appearance as private
prosecutor on behalf of Manolo’s common wife. Later on, Valmonte learned that Quesada
entered his appearance and filed pleadings in court while he was suspended from the
practice of law. Thus, she filed a complaint for disbarment for violation of the Supreme
Court’s directive suspending him from the practice of law for one year.
Issue
Whether an additional penalty may be imposed upon a suspended lawyer
Held + Ratio
A review of recent jurisprudence reveals that the court has consistently imposed an
additional suspension of six months on lawyers who continue to practice law despite their
suspension. Quesada’s acts of filing numerous pleadings in the RTC of La Union are clear
proof that he practiced law during the period of his suspension. This is considered willful
disobedience to a lawful order of the court which under Section 27 Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
However, the Court noted that Quesada had already been meted with the penalty of
disbarment for his gross misconduct and willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the
court in another complaint. Thus, the penalty of an additional six months can no longer be
imposed upon him since once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that can be imposed
regarding his privilege to practice law. However, it can still give the corresponding penalty
only for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer file
a petition to lift disbarment.
In addition, the Court may also impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to have
committed an offense prior to his/her disbarment as the Court does not lose exclusive
jurisdiction over other offenses committed by the disbarred lawyer while he/she was still a
member of the law profession. Although already disbarred, the Court deems it proper to
give the corresponding penalty of six month suspension for the sole purpose of recording it
in the OBC and a fine of 40,000 pesos.
Page 21
Turla v. Caringal
A.C. No. 11641 (March 12, 2019) | Hernando, J.

Responsibility; To the Client; To the Courts
Doctrine
In case a lawyer fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance
period, the non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of PHP 1,000.00 and
comply with the MCLE requirements within a 60-day period, otherwise, he/she will be
listed as a delinquent IBP member after investigation by the IBP and recommendation by
the MCLE Committee. The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the lawyer
who fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period and is in
no way a grant of exemption from compliance to the lawyer who thus paid.
Facts
Marilu Turla is the petitioner in a special proceedings case, where Atty. Jose Caringal is the
counsel for the respondent. Tural filed an administrative case against Atty. Caringal for
failure to take the after she discovered required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III); and violation of his
lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood. Turla averred that even if Atty. Caringal was already
confronted with his deception, he continued to indicate that he was exempted from MCLE II
and III. It was later on discovered that the official receipt Atty. Caringal pertained not for his
MCLE exemption, but for the payment of the MCLE non-compliance fee.
Issue
Whether Atty Caringal should be disciplined for failing to comply with the MCLE
requirements in a timely manner and for falsely asserting that he had an exemption from the
MCLE requirements.
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Caringal shall be held liable for his willful statement of false MCLE details in his
pleadings to the prejudice of his clients in violation of the lawyer’s oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
Canon 10.3, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the CPR.
The directive to comply with the MCLE requirements is essential for the legal profession, as
enshrined in BM No. 850, to ensure that throughout the IBP members' career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession, and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.
In case a lawyer fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period,
the non-compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of PHP 1,000.00 and comply with
the MCLE requirements within a 60-day period, otherwise, he/she will be listed as a
delinquent IBP member after investigation by the IBP and recommendation by the MCLE
Committee. The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty imposed on the lawyer who fails to
comply with the MCLE requirements within the compliance period and is in no way a grant
of exemption from compliance to the lawyer who thus paid.
Page 22
In this case, Atty. Caringal cannot be listed as a delinquent member since he was not sent a
notice of non-compliance. Moreover, he subsequently complied with the MCLE
requirements as of March 2011. Nevertheless, Atty. Caringal is being held liable for
knowingly and willfully misrepresenting in the pleadings he had signed and submitted to
the courts that he was exempted from MCLE II and III. Atty. Caringal, not only failed to
indicate the necessary MCLE details in his pleadings and motions, but purposely stated
therein the false information that he was exempted from MCLE II and III. As he had filed
the subject pleadings in 2010, prior to the amendment of BM No. 1922 on January 14, 2014,
the pleadings he filed were indeed expunged from the records, to his clients' detriment.
Thus, Atty. Caringal violated his sworn oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood" as well as Rule
1.01, Rule 10.1, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the CPR. When Atty. Caringal indicated that he
was MCLE-exempt, although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which
was also disrespectful of the courts. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect and can result in the
expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and
actually violated his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence.
Therefore, Atty. Mangaser was suspended from the practice of law for three years.
Page 23
Tablizo v. Golangco
AC No. 10636 (October 12, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Doctrine
It is settled that in disbarment and suspension proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant. A lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through
substantial evidence
Facts
Tablizo filed several complaints against former Mayor Santos V. Zafe (Zafe) and incumbent
Mayor Jose U. Alberto II (Alberto) of the Municipality of Virac, Catanduanes for violation of
RA No. 3019 and 6713. He alleged that they failed to sign each and every page of certain
municipal tax ordinances as required by the Local Government Code and for implementing
them despite their defect and nullity. The complaints were indorsed to the Office of the
Ombudsman, which subsequently dismissed the complaints for lack of merit and
complainant’s motion for reconsideration.
Tablizo then filed a complaint against all officials of the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon
for gross misconduct, alleging that respondents maliciously failed to observe the standards
of personal conduct provided under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 6770 in the discharge and
execution of their official duties for failing and/or refusing to investigate in the real sense of
the word, the charges against Alberto and Zafe.
Issue
Whether or not the respondents violated their professional duties as lawyers
Held + Ratio
No, Tabliza failed to prove that respondents committed gross misconduct in the exercise of
their official duties. In this case, other than his bare allegations, Tablizo was unable to
present proof to substantiate his grave charges against respondents. Absent any evidence to
the contrary, respondents enjoy the presumption that they had regularly performed their
official duties.
In Vitriolo v. Dasig, the Court laid down that as a general rule, a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be
disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.
Gross misconduct is punishable by either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law,
as provided under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It has been defined as any
inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with
the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. The motive behind this conduct is generally a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
Page 24
It is settled that in disbarment and suspension proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant. A lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof
rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through
substantial evidence. In the case at bar, there is an absolute dearth of evidence of the
respondents' alleged gross misconduct. Other than his bare allegations, complainant was
unable to present proof to substantiate his grave charges against respondents. That the
resolutions issued by the respondents were adverse to the complainant does not, by itself,
establish malice or prejudice against him.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Page 25
Sps. Nocuenca v. Bensi
Doctrine
The Court has consistently ruled that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in
his/her complaint through substantial evidence. The quantum of proof in administrative
cases is substantial evidence. As held in Reyes v. Nieva, disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial
of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of
its officers. In Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin, the Court ruled that the quantum of proof in
administrative cases is substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Facts
The parents of Lucille B. Nocuenca were declared the lawful owners of a piece of property.
The spouses Darito and Lucille Nocuenca claimed that they inherited the property after the
death of Lucille’s parents.
An altercation over the disputed property occurred between the spouses and Atty. Alfredo
Bensi, who had possession of the property. The spouses alleged that they went to the chapel
to post a “No Trespassing” sign, but they were assaulted and clobbered by Atty. Bensi and
his son. Due to this incident, the complainants filed two counts of slight Physical Injuries
against Atty. Bensi and his son. On the other hand, Atty. Bensi filed a criminal case for
Trespass to Property with Physical Injuries against the complainants.
The spouses then filed an administrative case for disbarment against Bensi, alleging that the
latter violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for infliction of physical
injuries upon the spouses. Likewise, they claimed that the criminal case filed against them
contained false accusations which is a violation of Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of CPR, and the
Lawyer’s Oath thereby warranting the penalty of disbarment.
Issue
Whether the alleged acts of Atty. Bensi’s can constitute disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.
Held + Ratio
No, the complainants failed to prove their claim with substantial evidence required in
disbarment and suspension cases against lawyers. As such, Atty. Bensi’s presumption of
innocence must be upheld and, consequently, the complaint against him must be dismissed.
The Court has consistently ruled that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his/her
complaint through substantial evidence. The quantum of proof in administrative cases is
substantial evidence. As held in Reyes v. Nieva, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action
or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. In
Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin, the Court ruled that the quantum of proof in administrative
Page 26
cases is substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Atty. Bensi was acting within his legal rights as the lawful possessor of the property. The
Court observed that Atty. Bensi was in possession of the disputed property when the
complainants tried to enter and take it. Complainants were then equipped with a hammer
and a flat bar to force their way inside a locked gate of the chapel. Complainants believed
that they were the lawful owners of the property on the strength of a Partial Summary
Judgment which awarded the property to Lucille's now deceased parents.
Nevertheless, even if the complainants are indeed the lawful owners of the disputed
property, they should not have taken the law into their own hands through force. What the
complainants should have done was to invoke the aid of the proper court in lawfully taking
possession of the property as provided under Art. 536 of the Civil Code.
While lawyers are mandated to act with dignity and in a manner that inspires confidence in
the legal profession, their rights must still be protected just like every ordinary individual.
The legal profession and the threat of disbarment should not be used as a means to provoke
lawyers who are acting well within their rights. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.
Page 27
Kiener v. Amores
Topic: Notarial Practice
Doctrine
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, one of which is a jurat.
Atty. Amores performed a jurat when he notarized the Secretary's Certificate with Irene
signing as the Corporate Secretary. Rule II, Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial Practice
requires that the signatory, or the affiant, physically appears before the notary public and
signs the document in his presence. In Prospero v. Delos Santos, the Court emphasized that
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 is 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
John Paul Kiener was the accused in an estafa case, with Atty. Ricardo R. Amores was the
private prosecutor on behalf of the private complainant, Pado's Divecamp Resort
Corporation. He was also the commissioned notary public who signed the Secretary’s
Certificate executed by the corporate secretary Irene Medalla, which authorized the
Chairman of the Board of Directors to file a criminal case on behalf of the Corporation
against Kiener.
Kiener filed an administrative case against Atty. Amores, claiming that the Secretary's
Certificate was defective and improperly notarized since Atty. Amores failed to indicate the
serial number of his notarial commission in the notarial certificate, and that Irene's signature
appears to have been printed or scanned (digital copy) into the document. He asserts that
because of the use of a printed signature, Irene could not have been physically present
before Atty. Amores when the document was signed and notarized. Kiener claims that this
act constitutes a violation of the requirement of physical presence of the signatory in the
performance of a notarial act as provided in Rule IV, Section 2 of the Rules on Notarial
Practice. Further, he claims that this act likewise constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon
1, Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 19.01, Canon 19, of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
Issue
Whether Atty. Amores is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the CPR
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Amores violated the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized a document
without the presence of the signatory and failed to indicate his commission number in the
notarial certificate.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, one of which is a jurat.
Atty. Amores performed a jurat when he notarized the Secretary's Certificate with Irene
signing as the Corporate Secretary. Rule II, Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial Practice
requires that the signatory, or the affiant, physically appears before the notary public and
Page 28
signs the document in his presence. In Prospero v. Delos Santos, the Court emphasized that 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 is 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. Amores failed to observe the requirement of physical presence when he notarized the
Secretary's Certificate. Upon examination, and as admitted by Atty. Amores, Irene's
signature in the Secretary's Certificate attached to the complaint-affidavit in the criminal
case was merely printed. It was not an actual handwritten signature of Irene. Neither did
Atty. Amores present any proof that Irene was indeed physically in his presence upon the
signing and notarization of the document. Atty. Amores also failed to indicate the serial
number of his notarial commission in the concluding part of the notarial certificate of the
Secretary's Certificate as required by the rules.
For having committed such violations, he also failed to adhere to Canon 1 of the CPR, which
requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a
lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
Thus, Atty. Ricardo’s notarial commission is revoked and he is disqualified from being
reappointed as a notary public for two years.
Page 29
Ick v. Amazona
A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020 | Hernando, J.
Topic: Notarial Practice
Doctrine
Atty. Amazona merely performed his duty when he attested to the fact that the director
and auditor of the homeowner’s association personally appeared and signed the said
letter before him. The truth or falsity of the contents of the letter is the responsibility of the
affiant and not of the respondent, especially since no substantial evidence was presented
to prove that he knowingly notarized a false document.
Facts
Complainants Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson, and Teresita Edosada filed a complaint
against Atty. Amazona for notarizing an allegedly false document. The complainants allege
that Atty. Amazona notarized a letter used to facilitate the registration of South Forbes
Phuket Mansions Homeowners Association, Inc. Complainants averred that said letter
falsely stated that most buyers of the subdivision lots were out of the country and as such, it
was highly improbable to secure their signatures. Complainants claimed that respondent
knew that such assertion was untrue because he was in constant communication with the
residents of South Forbes Phuket Mansions, including complainants. Complainants further
claimed that the list of members with corresponding signatures attached to the letter was
also false, since it referred to their attendance during a meeting for a property manager, and
not for a homeowners meeting for the registration of the homeowners' association when in
fact there was none.
Issue
Whether Atty. Amazona is liable for notarizing a false document
Held + Ratio
No, Atty. Amazona did not commit any violation of the Rules of Court, the Notarial Rules,
or the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Amazona merely performed his duty when
he attested to the fact that the director and auditor of the homeowner’s association
personally appeared and signed the said letter before him. The truth or falsity of the
contents of the letter is the responsibility of the affiant and not of the respondent, especially
since no substantial evidence was presented to prove that he knowingly notarized a false
document.
Every person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In disbarment proceedings,
the complainant must satisfactorily establish the allegations of his or her complaint through
substantial evidence. Mere allegations without proof are disregarded considering the
gravity of the penalty prayed for. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot
be given credence.
Therefore, the complaint for disbarment is dismissed for lack of merit.
Page 30
Home Guaranty Corporation v. Tagayuna

Doctrine
On establishing conflict of interest: In order to establish a violation of the conflict of interest
rule, the following must be determined:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and at the same time to oppose that claim for the other client
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a
lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty
3. Whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.
On the exercise of the retaining lien: A lawyer is entitled to a lien over funds, documents, and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession for purposes of
satisfying legal fees and disbursements due to him. The lien covers documents such as
titles and other pertinent papers. However, a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally
appropriate his client’s money and properties and documents for himself by the mere fact
that he is owed legal fees. It is essential that the client consent to the application of his
property or funds to the legal fees in which case the lawyer may deduct what is due him
and return the excess to the client. Absent such consent, the lawyer must return the funds
to the client, without prejudice to the filing of a case to recover the unpaid fees.
Facts
The Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Lamberto Tagayuna, Atty. Jose Gangan, Atty. Elmar Ponopio, and Atty. Renato De Pano, Jr.
for violation of the conflict of interest rule provided by Canon 15 and for their failure and
refusal to account for the funds and properties of their client HGC when due or upon
demand, as provided in Canon 16. The respondents are partners of Soliven, Tagayuna,
Gangan, Ponopio and De Pano Law Firm (Law Firm).
HGC engaged ESP Collection Agency (ESP), represented by Atty. Panopio jointly with the
his firm for judicial and extrajudicial collection of due receivables. When HGC and ESP
agreed to terminate their contractual relationship, HGC claimed that the respondents
refused to return the documents, specifically 53 owner’s duplicate copies of Transfer
Certificates of Title and other documents that were endorsed to the Law Firm in view of the
termination of the Collection Retainership Agreement.
On the allegation of conflict of interest, HGC claimed that Atty. Tagayuna was also the
president of Blue Star Construction and Development Corporation (BSCDC), which initiated
an arbitration case against HGC before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
while the Collection Retainership Agreement with ESP was still subsisting.
Atty. Tagayuna admitted that he was an officer of BSCDC but not its counsel when the
arbitration case was filed. Their agreement already expired when BSCDC filed the
Page 31
arbitration case against HGC. Any communication between the Law Firm, ESP, and HGC
beyond the contract period was purely for the winding up of the obligations of the parties.
The respondents added that HGC still owes ESP and the Law Firm money for which the
Law Firm exercised its retaining lien against the remaining records in custody for
non-payment of legal fees. They also add that these documents were already returned to
HGC save for a few unaccounted ones.
Issues
Whether the respondent attorneys should be held administratively liable for violating the
conflict of interest rule and the withholding of documents for non-payment of legal fees.
Held + Ratio
No, the respondent attorneys did not violate the conflict of interest rule. In order to establish
a violation of the conflict of interest rule, the following must be determined:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and at the same time to oppose that claim for the other client
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a
lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty
3. Whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.
The Court finds that Attys. Tagayuna and Panopio did not violate the conflict of interest rule
under the three tests. Under the first test, there is conflict of interest if the lawyer represents
both opposing parties in an issue or claim. If a lawyer’s argument for one client has to be
opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
The Court finds that there was no violation under the parameters of this test. Respondents
did not represent HGC and BSCDC’s conflicting interests. The firm did not represent
BSCDC as counsel in the arbitration case. Atty. Tagayuna merely signed as president to
verify the complaint. Further, evidence shows that the firm and ESP were engaged by HGC
for collection purposes only. There is no proof that the Law Firm handled matters that were
related to the arbitration case. It was also established that the Law Firm was no longer
retained as counsel at the time of the filing of the arbitration case. Considering the
foregoing, the respondents did not represent both opposing parties.
For the second test, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of a new relation or
engagement will prevent the lawyer from faithfully performing his duties to a client. The
second test is not relevant to the instant case. In order to be relevant, there must be an
allegation that the lawyer’s acceptance of a new relation while being counsel for another
client prevents them from faithfully performing their duties to it. There is no showing that
BSCDC is a new client of the Law Firm.
The third test provides that there is conflict of interest if the lawyer, in a new relation, would
be called upon to use against a former client any confidential information he has acquired
through their connection or previous employment. This test specifically applies to situations
where the professional relationship with a former client was already terminated when the
lawyer was engaged by a new client. For there to be conflicting interests, the following must
concur: (1) the lawyer is called upon in his present engagement to make use against a
former client confidential information which was acquired through their connection or
previous employment and (2) the present engagement involves transactions that occurred
Page 32
during the lawyer’s employment with former client and matters that the lawyer previously
handled for the said client. Related to this, proof must be adduced to show that the former
client intended the information to be confidential. The mere relations between attorney and
client does not create a presumption of confidentiality.
However, there is no evidence that the firm used against HGC confidential information
acquired from their previous relation. HGC merely made allegations that respondents
represented BSCDC while being engaged as its counsel. The subject of arbitration matters
was not handled by the firm. The firm was engaged for collection purposes only. Neither is
there is no new relation to speak of as BSCDC is not a client of the Law Firm.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds and affirms that the respondents did not violate the
conflict of interest rule and are thus not administratively liable.
On the charge of unlawful withholding of documents, HGC claims that respondents failed
and refused to return documents when due and upon demand. The Court finds the charge
to be partly meritorious. Canon 16 provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all monies and
properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 adds that a lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he
shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.
It has been consistently held that any money or property collected for the client possessed
by the lawyer should be promptly declared and reported to the client. A lawyer is entitled to
a lien over funds, documents, and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his
possession for purposes of satisfying legal fees and disbursements due to him. The lien
covers documents such as titles and other pertinent papers. However, a lawyer is not
entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money and properties and documents for
himself by the mere fact that he is owed legal fees. It is essential that the client consent to the
application of his property or funds to the legal fees in which case the lawyer may deduct
what is due him and return the excess to the client. Absent such consent, the lawyer must
return the funds to the client, without prejudice to the filing of a case to recover the unpaid
fees.
The requisites to exercise lien were not met. It is essential that the client consent to the
application of its property to the unpaid fees because a lawyer cannot unilaterally
appropriate his client’s property. Here, there is no proof that HGC consented to withholding
of the titles to satisfy the unpaid legal fees. Thus, the court finds that the Law Firm
improperly exercised its right to retain HGC’s documents as lien.
While the documents were already returned to HGC during the pendency of the case, the
respondents still committed a violation of Canon 16 of the CPR at the time of the filing of
the complaint. Considering this, the court deems it proper to reprimand Attys. Tagayuna
and Panopio with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall merit a heavier
penalty.
Page 33
Go v. Teruel

Responsibility; To the Courts
Doctrine
It is not strictly the actual docketing of the administrative complaints but the mere act of
filing multiple complaints with the same cause/s of action, parties, and relief/s which
constitutes a violation of the rule against forum shopping. There is no qualification that
the pleadings should first be accepted by the tribunal/agency or properly docketed before
forum shopping could be deemed committed. It is enough that the party concerned filed
multiple actions involving the same parties, cause/s of action, and relief/s before a court,
tribunal, or agency. The intent of the individual who files multiple complaints to secure a
favorable ruling is what is being sought to be penalized.
Facts
Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go had filed a complaint for falsification and perjury, and for
violation of Canons 8, 10, and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) against
Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel. Atty. Go claimed that Atty. Teruel maliciously charged him with
deliberate misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Atty. Teruel had alleged that Atty.
Go's associate misrepresented the date of receipt of the Notice of Appeal Case in Civil Case
No. 1176 to supposedly mislead RTC of Dumangas, Iloilo that the law office timely filed its
appeal.
Atty. Teruel’s client, Rev. Fr. Antonio Reyes initiated a complaint for grave professional
misconduct against Atty. Go. The following day, Atty. Teruel filed a rejoinder and a
counter-complaint charging Atty. Go with violations of Canon 11 of the CPR.
In view of these developments, Atty. Go filed another complaint alleging that Atty. Teruel
counter-complaint and Fr. Reyes’ complaint was substantially the same except for the
complainants and both pleadings were prepared by Atty. Teruel. Thus, Atty. Go alleged that
Atty. Teruel violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04, and Canon 8 of the CPR for filing multiple
actions arising from the same cause, violating the rule against forum shopping.
Issue
Whether Atty. Teruel committed forum shopping when he filed the Complaint of Fr. Reyes
followed by his own counter-complaint a day after, both against Atty. Go.
Ruling
Yes, Atty. Teruel willfully committed forum shopping when he instituted two actions
grounded on the same cause, even if strictly speaking, he was not a "complainant" in Fr.
Reyes' Complaint.
It is well-settled that "[t]he essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of
an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the
Page 34
chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its existence
is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to
claim substantially the same reliefs. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
another."
It is not strictly the actual docketing of the administrative complaints but the mere act of
filing multiple complaints with the same cause/s of action, parties, and relief/s which
constitutes a violation of the rule against forum shopping. There is no qualification that the
pleadings should first be accepted by the tribunal/agency or properly docketed before
forum shopping could be deemed committed. It is enough that the party concerned filed
multiple actions involving the same parties, cause/s of action, and relief/s before a court,
tribunal, or agency. The intent of the individual who files multiple complaints to secure a
favorable ruling is what is being sought to be penalized.
In this case, it is clear that the allegations in both complaints are essentially the same. Atty.
Teruel even admitted that he prepared Fr. Reyes’ complaint. Thus, Atty. Teruel committed
forum-shopping and violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
Rule 12.02 of the CPR explicitly provides that "[a] lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause," while Rule 12.04 states that " [a] lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes." It must be
emphasized that "[l]awyers should not trifle with judicial processes and resort to forum
shopping because they have the duty to assist the courts in the administration of justice.
Filing of multiple actions contravenes such duty because it does not only clog the court
dockets, but also takes the courts' time and resources from other cases."
Therefore, Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
months.
Page 35
Gerodias v. Riveral
AC No. 12719, February 17, 2021 | Hernando, J.
Doctrine
Mere allegation of conspiracy is not evidence and not equivalent to proof. The burden of
proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by clear, convincing
and satisfactory proof.
Facts
Gerodias was a former employee of Oriental Port and Allied Services Corporation
(OPASCOR). He was subjected to several disciplinary investigations for heated altercations
with co-employees, damage to company property, abandonment of work, and for stealing a
box of perfumes owned by OPASCOR’s clients. Instead of terminating Gerodias, OPASCOR
approved Gerodias’ demand to be given the option of voluntary resignation with payment
of separation pay despite the fact that he was short of two years to avail of the company’s
early retirement program.
A month after Gerodias received his retirement pay, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against OPASCOR and demanded a breakdown of deductions made on his retirement pay.
On the other hand, OPASCOR filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against
Gerodias. The Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed
his complaint for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, Gerodias filed a disbarment case against Riveral as the President and General
Manager of OPASCOR; Pulvera-Page, as the Corporate Secretary of OPASCOR, and one of
the lawyers in the firm of Riveral, Pulvera & Associates; and Supatan, as a lawyer in Riveral,
Pulvera & Associates who received Gerodias’ Position Paper during the proceedings of the
labor case. Gerodias averred that Riveral, Pulvera-Page, and Supatan violated Canon 1,
Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when they
connived and conspired to dismiss him from his employment.
Issues
Whether the disbarment case has merit
Held + Ratio
No, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint. Settled is the rule that for a charge to
justify a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing
proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the lawyer is presumed innocent.
Riveral, as the President and General Manager of OPASCOR, did not act in bad faith in
approving the early retirement of Gerodias, instead of criminally charging him and
terminating his employment under which he would have received a considerably lesser
separation pay than the retirement package. As President and General Manager, he
approved Gerodias' request to avail of the early retirement program even when he was
short of two years in service per the company policy. There is no violation of the CPR or the
Lawyer's Oath in Riveral's benevolent act of accommodating Gerodias' request. No evidence
Page 36
was presented to show that Riveral acted with bad faith, malice, or ill will. Hence, the
presumption of good faith in his favor stands.
As to the two questioned Secretary's Certificates signed and executed by Pulvera-Page as

the Corporate Secretary and Geyrosaga as the Recording Secretary, the act is sanctioned
under Article IV, Section 1, 2nd paragraph of the Amended By-Laws of OPASCAR. The
corporation's power to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the Board of Directors
which may duly authorize an individual through its corporate by-laws or by a specific act to
sign documents on behalf of the corporation. Hence, there is nothing erroneous nor illegal in
Pulvera-Page's signing and executing a Secretary's Certificate as OPASCOR's Corporate
Secretary as she is duly authorized to do so. The fact that Geyrosaga is also duly authorized
to sign and execute a Secretary's Certificate does not connote connivance nor conspiracy
between the two to terminate Gerodias' employment. In addition, the Board of Director’s act
of authorizing two persons to execute Secretary's Certificate is not prohibited and well
within the ambit of the law.
Lastly, Supatan's act of receiving Gerodias' Position Paper in the proceedings of the labor
case does not imply conspiracy and connivance with Riveral, Pulvera-Page and Cadungog
in order to illegally terminate Gerodias from his employment. Supatan is an associate of the
firm of Riveral, Pulvera-Page & Associates which represents OPASCAR in the labor case
filed by Gerodias. Hence, Supatan, as an associate of the firm, is duty bound to assist and
represent its client OPASCAR in the said labor case including the receipt of any pleadings
filed. Her act of receiving a copy of Gerodias' Position Paper is a lawful act and does not in
any way violate the CPR nor the Lawyer's Oath.
Mere allegation of conspiracy is not evidence and not equivalent to proof. The burden of
proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof. Evidently, complainant Gerodias utterly failed to discharge such burden.
Accordingly, the administrative case against Atty. Tomas A. Riveral, Atty. Annabel G.
Pulvera-Page and Atty. Lorena M. Supatan is dismissed for lack of merit.
Page 37
Francia vs. Sagario

Doctrine
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is
bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the
intended purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must
be immediately returned to the client. A lawyer's failure to return the money to his client
despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of
his lack of integrity, as in this case. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause.
Facts
Editha M. Francia contracted Atty. Sagario’s services for the annulment of her marriage.
Francia had made several payments to Atty. Sagario: (1) an initial payment of PHP 30,000 to
which Atty. Sagario issued an acknowledgment receipt; (2) another payment of PHP 20,000
to which Atty. Sagario issued another receipt; and (3) another payment of PHP 7,000 to
which Atty. Sagario didn’t issue a receipt as he claimed that it will be used as filing fees and
representation expenses for the sheriff.
After receiving the total sum of PHP 57,000, Atty. Sagario avoided phone calls from Francia
and canceled their appointments. After 6 months had lapsed without Atty. Sagario filing
anything in court, Francia made repeated demands for the return of the money. When he
failed to return the money, Francia filed a small claims case against Atty. Sagario. The MeTC
ordered Atty. Sagario to pay Francia the amount of Php 50,000 with interest. When Atty.
Sagario failed to pay the amount, Francia filed a complaint against Sagario before the IBP.
Issue
Whether Atty. Sagario’s conduct is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held + Ratio
Yes, the Court finds Atty. Sagario guilty of professional misconduct for violating Canons 16,
17, and 18 of the CPR. Atty. Sagario breached his duties to his client when he failed to
exercise due diligence in handling the annulment case of Francia. His failure to render any
services legal services despite his receipt of fees is a clear violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the CPR. Following this, Atty. Sagario’s failure to return the paid amount to Francia is a
violation of Canon 16 (Rules 16.01 and 16.03) and Canon 17.
Once a lawyer agrees to represent a client, they are duty-bound to exert their best efforts
and to serve the latter with utmost diligence and competence. A lawyer owes fidelity to the
client's cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon them.
A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to them by the client constitutes inexcusable
negligence for which they must be held administratively liable.
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound
to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended
purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must be
Page 38
immediately returned to the client. A lawyer's failure to return the money to his client
despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his
lack of integrity, as in this case. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause.
The highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship imposes upon the lawyer the
duty to account for the money received from the client. A lawyer's failure to return upon
demand the money received from the client gives rise to the presumption that they have
appropriated the same for their own use. An attorney-client relationship requires utmost
good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of the lawyer. In this case, Atty. Sagario clearly
fell short of the demands required of him as a member of the Bar.
Therefore, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two
years for the lawyer's failure to render any legal service despite receipt of legal fees.
Page 39
Elanga v. Pasok
AC No. 12030 (September 29, 2020) | Hernando, J.
Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers; Notarial Practice
Doctrine
The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in a disbarment case is of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
complainant has the burden of proving his allegations against respondents.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the
duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with
public interest.
Facts
Lourdes E. Elanga and Nilo E. Elanga filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent
Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok for alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Atty. Pasok was the counsel of the plaintiffs in a case for partition, recovery of ownership,
and possession against the Elangas. The complainants claimed that Atty. Pasok falsified
their signatures on a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition on a subject lot under litigation,
notarized a Real Estate Mortgage for said lot without their knowledge and consent, and
retained a portion of the proceeds of the mortgage.
Issue
Whether Atty. Pasok is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Pasok violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of CAnon 1 and Canon 16 of the CPR.
Atty. Pasok allowed the mortgage and even notarized the document evidencing the same
despite knowing that the land was subject of a pending case, and that the copy of the title of
the subject lot was in the Elangas' possession. Lourdes and Nilo were likewise not made
aware of the mortgage as they alleged that the signature of Lourdes was forged.
Furthermore, Atty. Pasok allowed his clients to receive Lourdes's share from the proceeds of
the mortgage despite knowing that they were opposing parties in the civil case. By
notarizing the mortgage document and subsequently receiving part of the proceeds thereof,
Atty. Pasok violated Rule 4, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice.
The Elangas proved with substantial evidence that Atty. Pasok committed several
infractions pertaining to his participation in relevant documents concerning the opposing
parties not only as a retained counsel but also as a notary public, and which involved
monetary considerations which he improperly received. Because of this, the Court finds that
Atty. Pasok violated Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 of Canon 1 as well as Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of
the CPR. He also violated the Lawyer’s Oath when he did not conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as
well as to his clients.
Page 40
The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in a disbarment case is of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
complainant has the burden of proving his allegations against respondents. Lawyers
commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
Indeed, Atty. Pasok's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public resulted not
only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in
undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and in degrading the function of
notarization.
Thus, Atty. Pasok was suspended from the practice of law for 5 years.
Page 41
Dap-og v. Mendez
A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020 | Hernando, J.
Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers; Grounds
Doctrine
The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and
reliable — lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. Moreover, the
Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any misconduct showing any fault or
deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, whether in his
profession or private life because good character is an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.
Facts
Roger Dap-og filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Luel Mendez for allegedly
mauling and hurling invectives at him. Roger was involved in a case where Atty. Mendez
represented the plaintiffs. Roger alleged that Atty. Mendez suddenly attacked him at a
canteen which resulted in bruises and a fracture in the right shoulder. On the other hand,
Atty. Mendez denied the allegations and claimed that while there was a heated exchange of
words between Roger and his client, Roger was never threatened or physically harmed
Issues
Whether Atty. Mendez should be held administratively liable based on the allegations on
the complaint
Held + Ratio
Yes, the records of this case show without a shadow of doubt that Atty. Mendez exhibited
Gross Misconduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. The denial of Atty. Mendez could
not overcome the positive declaration of Roger and his own witnesses. In particular, the
affidavit of Atty. Ladaga corroborated Roger’s account and validated the injuries reflected in
his medical certificate. The certificate and the police blotter were prepared by disinterested
parties, and should be given the presumption of good faith. On the other hand, respondent
merely enumerated his supposed achievements which were irrelevant to the case.
In Soriano v. Dizon, the Court reiterated that the purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to
protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important
function be competent, honorable and reliable — lawyers in whom courts and clients may
repose confidence. Moreover, the Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any misconduct
showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
whether in his profession or private life because good character is an essential qualification
for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.
Applied in this case, Atty. Mendez clearly did not meet the lofty standards reposed on
lawyers. There is no excuse for respondent's unlawful and dishonorable behavior. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that respondent's allegations against Roger were true,
that the latter swindled the former's clients, no person should take the law into his own
hands.
Page 42
Thus, the Court cannot countenance respondent's pugilistic behavior and brand of vigilante
"justice," as it is this Court's duty to uphold the rule of law and not the rule of men.
Respondent, being a lawyer and an officer of the court, should know this basic principle and
should have acted accordingly.
Thus, Atty. Mendez is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Page 43
Constantino v. Aransazo, Jr.

Doctrine
Lawyer-client privilege: A lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client
seeks the lawyer’s advice upon a legal concern. From that moment on, the lawyer is
bound to respect the relationship and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client.
Thus, if an individual consults a lawyer in respect to his business affairs or legal troubles
of any kind with a view towards obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the
lawyer acquiesces with the consultation, then a lawyer-client relationship is established.
Facts
Atty. Rogelio Constantino filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nemesio Aransazo
for alleged violation of Canons 17 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
disclosing confidential information acquired in the course of their lawyer-client relationship.
Atty. Constantino had engaged the services of Atty. Aransazo in a civil case for the
annulment of extra-judicial proceedings over a house and lot registered in the name of Hope
Aldaba who previously obtained a loan from Eduardo Tongco. The loan was secured by a
real estate mortgage and a promissory note and irrevocable Special Power of Attorney in
favor of Tongco. Since Aldaba failed to pay the amount of the loan on its maturity date,
Tongco executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Attys. Constantino and Aransazo
transferring all his rights and interests in the mortgage, promissory note and Special Power
of Attorney to the latter. When Aldaba failed to redeem the property despite demands,
Attys. Constantino and Aransazo filed Extrajudicial Foreclosure Proceedings No. 03-1914.
The counsel of Aldaba filed a motion to show that the Deed of Assignment was null and
void for having a simulated consideration. This motion was based on a sworn statement
executed by Atty. Aransazo admitted that Atty. Constantino had approached him about a
looming suit he expected out of a loan he personally extended to a certain person and Atty.
Aransazo agreed to be the co-assignee to the mortgage, without actually paying for his half
of the assignment.
Issue
Whether Atty. Aransazo violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney
and client
Held + Ratio
Yes, Atty. Constantino approached Atty. Aransazo to disclose sensitive information and
documents for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. At that moment a veritable
lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. In this regard, Canon 17 of the CPR
states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. Due to the existence of the lawyer-client relationship
between Attys. Constantino and Aransoza, the latter is enjoined to keep confidential and
privileged information acquired during legal consultations.
Page 44
A lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client seeks the lawyer’s advice
upon a legal concern. From that moment on, the lawyer is bound to respect the relationship
and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client. Thus, if an individual consults a
lawyer in respect to his business affairs or legal troubles of any kind with a view towards
obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the lawyer acquiesces with the consultation,
then a lawyer-client relationship is established.
In this regard, Atty. Aransazo violated the rule on privileged communication when he
executed the subject sworn statement. Canon 21 provides that the lawyer shall preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. This
is only subject to certain exceptions enumerated in Rule 21.01. In addition, Section 20 (e)
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of the attorney to maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, preserve the secrets of his client, and
to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with
his knowledge and approval. The purpose for the rule of confidentiality is to protect the
client from a breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer and preserve
the confidential trust relation between an attorney and client.
Therefore, Atty. Aransazo breached his duty of preserving the confidence of a client. The
information regarding the real estate mortgage, private documents such as the deed of
assignment, and other pertinent facts revealed in confidence to Atty. Aransazo used as basis
or support in the execution of his sworn statement and the filing of the amended complaint
against Atty. Constantino were acquired through an attorney-client relationship.
Furthermore, Atty. Arasazo represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule
15.03 of the CPR, which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
As counsel for Atty. Constantino, Atty. Aransazo advocated the validity and due execution
of the Deed of Assignment upon which Atty. Constantino's interest over the real estate
mortgage is based. On the other hand, the sworn statement of Atty. Aransazo refuted Atty.
Constantino's claim that the Deed of Assignment was executed with a valid consideration,
which necessarily jeopardized and prejudiced the latter's interest in the civil case. Worse
still, it appears that Atty. Aransazo even intended to take the witness stand to testify on his
sworn statement. Clearly, Atty. Aransazo violated the rule against conflict of interest.
A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violating the lawyer's oath and/or for breaching the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the CPR, for 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. The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise
of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.
Thus, Atty. Nemesio is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Page 45
Cansino v. Atty. Sederiosa
A.C. No. 8522. October 6, 2020 | Hernando, J.
Doctrine
A lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law by the Court must refrain
from performing all functions which would require the application of his legal knowledge
within the period of suspension. The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and
experience. It comprises the performance of acts which are characteristic of the legal
profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. Guided by the foregoing on what constitutes a practice of law, it is
beyond cavil that notarizing of documents constitutes a practice of law. In fact, one of the
requirements to be a duly commissioned notary public is that he/she must be a member
of the Philippine Bar in good standing.
Facts
Complainant Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. informed the Supreme Court that despite the Court's
Resolution suspending Atty. Sederiosa from the practice of law, the revocation of his notarial
practice and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, he has
continuously engaged in the practice of law and has remained to be a duly commissioned
notary public.
Atty. Sederiosa, in turn, claimed that he did not officially receive a copy of this Court's
Resolution and that he only learned about it when the complainants' counsel filed a
Manifestation before this Court.
Issue
Whether Atty. Sederiosa is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during
his suspension, and for notarizing documents despite the revocation of his notarial
commission, and for being commissioned as notary public notwithstanding his
disqualification.
Held + Ratio
Yes. There is more than enough evidence that shows that Atty. Sederiosa has continuously
been practicing his legal profession despite the suspension order against him. He remained
to be a duly commissioned notary public as attested by the Certification from the
RTC-Davao City, the Commission for Notary Public, and an Affidavit of Loss which he duly
notarized. In short, he had never served his suspension.
In an attempt to evade any liability, Atty. Sederiosa denied receipt of the Court's Resolution
suspending him from the law practice, revoking his notarial commission and disqualifying
him from being commissioned as such. However, a Registry Return Receipt clearly shows
that a certain Deo Zuniga (Zuniga), in behalf of Atty. Sederiosa, duly received a copy of Our
Resolution. Atty. Sederiosa failed to show proof that Zuniga was incompetent to receive the
same as he was neither a clerk or a person in charge of his office nor a person of sufficient
age and discretion then residing in his place of residence. He simply denied receipt of the
suspension order and did not assail the authority of Zuniga to receive the same. Verily, the
Page 46
registry receipt constitutes a prima facie proof that the suspension order had been delivered
to and received by Atty. Sederiosa. The presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty is upheld.
A lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law by the Court must refrain from
performing all functions which would require the application of his legal knowledge within
the period of suspension. The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It
comprises the performance of acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or
rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill. Guided by the foregoing on what constitutes a practice of law, it is beyond cavil that
notarizing of documents constitutes a practice of law. In fact, one of the requirements to be a
duly commissioned notary public is that he/she must be a member of the Philippine Bar in
good standing.
In other words, a lawyer, during the period of his/her suspension, is barred from engaging
in notarial practice as he/she is deemed not a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing, which is one of the essential requisites to be eligible as a notary public.
Therefore, Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa is suspended from the practice of law for two years, on
top of the one year suspension previously imposed upon him. His current notarial
commission, if any, is revoked, and Atty. Sederiosa is permanently disqualified from acting
as notary public.
Page 47
Burgos v. Bereber
AC No. 12666 (April 3, 2020) | Hernando, J.

Doctrine
A lawyer can be said to be representing conflicting interests specifically in circumstances
when he, having been engaged as counsel for a corporation, subsequently represents the
members of the same corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit filed against
them. To be clear, a corporation in a derivative suit is the real party in interest, while the
stockholder filing suit in the corporation's behalf would only be considered a nominal
party.
Facts
Santiago B. Burgos filed a complaint against Atty. Jovencio James G. Bereber for conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
Burgos and two other member-consumers of District III of Capiz Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(CAPELCO) filed an administrative complaint with the National Electrification
Administration (NEA) against several management staff of CAPELCO and certain members
of its Board of Directors for committing acts constituting Grave Misconduct, Neglect of
Duty, and Falsification. As Bereber was elected as Director by member-consumers of District
III, Burgos insisted that Berber failed to advance their interests and had no regard for
professionalism, ethics, integrity, and delicadeza, when he represented the accused members
of the Board of Directors and management staff in the proceedings before the NEA.
Bereber admitted that the members of the Board of Directors consulted with him and sought
his legal services in connection with the administrative complaint filed by Burgos with the
NEA. Bereber drafted, prepared, and signed their answer to the NEA complaint, and
appeared as counsel/collaborating counsel for them in the same case during the preliminary
conferences before the NEA. Bereber insisted that he did not represent conflicting interests
and, perforce, cannot be held administratively liable for therefore. Bereber argued that there
was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Burgos, considering that Burgos, at no
instance in the past, obtained his legal advice or sought consultation on any legal matter
arising from the pending NEA complaint and/or the NEA Comprehensive Operations
Audit.
Issue
Whether Bereber is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he appeared as counsel
for the accused members and management staff of CAPELCO in a case filed against them by
CAPELCO member-consumers of District III.
Held + Ratio
No, there was no conflict of interest when Bereber appeared as counsel before the NEA for
the accused directors and management staff of CAPELCO.
Page 48
Bereber rendered his legal services to CAPELCO further to his duties and responsibilities as
director. Considering that an administrative complaint was filed with the NEA against
certain members of the board and management staff in their capacities as directors and
officers, respectively, of CAPELCO, Bereber took on the responsibility of representing them
during the proceedings before the NEA. It appears, therefore, that Bereber assumed the dual
role of a director and lawyer of CAPELCO.
Rules on conflict of interest are embodied in Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR. In
determining whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on conflict of interest under the
CPR, it is essential to determine whether: (1) "a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or
claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client;"
(2) "the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance of that duty;" and (3) "a lawyer would be called upon in
the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired
through their connection or previous employment."
The Court finds insufficient evidence which would confirm the presence of an
attorney-client relationship between Burgos and Bereber. Bereber, as CAPELCO director,
represents the entire membership of CAPELCO, and not just the member-consumers of
District III. In any case, Burgos failed to establish that Bereber was engaged as counsel by
the member-consumers of District III.
Moreover, a lawyer can be said to be representing conflicting interests specifically in

circumstances when he, having been engaged as counsel for a corporation, subsequently
represents the members of the same corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit filed
against them. To be clear, a corporation in a derivative suit is the real party in interest, while
the stockholder filing suit in the corporation's behalf would only be considered a nominal
party. This is clearly wanting in this case. While the facts established on record reveal that
Bereber assumed the role as counsel of CAPELCO, the administrative complaint filed before
the NEA against the accused CAPELCO directors and managerial staff were brought by
Burgos and other consumer-members in their individual capacities and not in behalf of
CAPELCO.
This Court is also not inclined to mete out disciplinary punishment on Bereber on the
allegation of his supposed lack of "delicadeza" or sense of decency in this case because it is
not a legal ground for administrative disciplinary action under the CPR. At best, Bereber
can be said to have merely exercised independence of judgment as a lawyer when he
defended the interests of other member-consumers of CAPELCO.
Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
Page 49
Baygar v. Rivera

Doctrine
Baygar failed to prove by substantial evidence that Atty. Rivera committed acts in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR in the performance of his functions. Baygar’s
recourse from the alleged acts of Atty. Rivera is not through this disbarment complaint,
but before the proper authorities.
Facts
Risie G. Baygar filed a petition for disbarment against the Municipal Administrator of
Binangonan, Rizal, Atty. Claro Manuel M. Rivera. Baygar claimed that Rivera violated the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when the latter improperly
implemented the Closure Order on their family’s sari-sari store and seized their billiard
table. Baygar further averred that Atty. Rivera didn’t release the seized items even when
they secured the necessary business permits and only asked for the payment of more fines.
Baygar and her father were surprised to learn that Atty. Rivera had filed a criminal
complaint against them for the violation of municipal ordinance for operating a business
without securing a business permit.
Atty. Rivera argued that he was only implementing the local tax ordinance that was
allegedly violated by the Baygar family.
Issues
Whether Atty. Rivera’s acts constitute a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR
Held + Ratio
No, the complaint failed to show that Atty. Rivera committed acts which violated the
Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. Atty. Rivera was merely performing his official duties as
Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of Binangonan, particularly the
implementation of the Closure Order against the businesses operated by the Baygar family
and matters related thereto.
Significantly, Baygar failed to prove by substantial evidence that Atty. Rivera committed
acts in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR in the performance of his functions.
Baygar’s recourse from the alleged acts of Atty. Rivera is not through this disbarment
complaint, but before the proper authorities. The Court took judicial notice that Baygar
already filed complaints before the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal.
Therefore, the administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera is dismissed for lack of merit.
Page 50
Ang v. Belaro Jr.
AC No. 12408 (December 11, 2019) | Hernando, J.

Doctrine
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the official seal of
the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him or the
person duly authorized by him. Atty. Belaro was remiss in his duty to exercise utmost
diligence in the performance of his functions as a notary public and to comply with the
mandates of law. In being careless in failing to secure and keep his notarial seal in a safe
place away from any person not authorized to use the same, respondent Atty. Belaro
committed a transgression of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
No law or statute provides that the penalties against an erring lawyer cannot be imposed
if said lawyer is inactive in the practice of law by any reason such as election in public
office.
Facts
Complainant Venson R. Ang sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Salvador B. Belaro,
Jr. for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Ang and his siblings were surprised to learn that the property they inherited was already
cancelled by virtue of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Among Heirs with Waiver of
Rights (Extrajudicial Settlement) which they allegedly executed. The Extrajudicial
Settlement was notarized by respondent Atty. Belaro. Ang and his siblings also discovered
two other versions of the same document that were submitted to the Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO) and the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City that were likewise notarized by respondent Atty. Belaro. Three versions of the
Extrajudicial Settlement showed several irregularities therein, including misspelled names
and the alleged signature of Atty. Belaro.
Belaro denied that he notarized the questioned documents involving the subject property.
He claimed that his alleged signatures found therein were forgeries. Belaro also denied the
filing of the questioned notarized documents before the government agencies concerned. He
also alleged that he was elected as the representative of 1-Ang Edukasyon Party-List in the
House of Representatives. As a result, thereof, the penalties imposed by the IBP may have
been mooted because he is not in the active practice of law.
Issues
1. Whether Atty. Belaro is guilty for violating the 2004 Rule on Notarial Practice and the
Code of Professional Responsibility; and
2. Whether Atty. Belaro’s subsequent election in the House of Representatives as a
party-list representative mooted the imposition of a penalty.
Held + Ratio
Page 51
Yes, Belaro is liable for breach of notarial law and for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The signatures of respondent Atty. Belaro found in the three versions of the
Extrajudicial Settlement were indeed forgeries. However, respondent Atty. Belaro is not
exculpated from administrative liability. As observed by the IBP, the Extrajudicial Settlement
bore his notarial seal. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in
use, the official seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible
only to him or the person duly authorized by him. Atty. Belaro was remiss in his duty to
exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as a notary public and to
comply with the mandates of law. In being careless in failing to secure and keep his notarial
seal in a safe place away from any person not authorized to use the same, respondent Atty.
Belaro committed a transgression of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
The Court holds that respondent Atty. Belaro should be meted the penalty of suspension
and revocation of his notarial commission for having violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. In line with current jurisprudence, and as recommended by the IBP, his
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years is in order. The
revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is likewise called for.
The fact that respondent Atty. Belaro is not in the active practice of law by reason of his
election in the House of Representatives as a party-list representative of 1-Ang Edukasyon
Party-List in the 2016 National Election, is irrelevant. Assuming arguendo that respondent
Atty. Belaro remains to be a Representative, he still cannot escape liability on the ground
that he is not in the active practice of law. To begin with, no law or statute provides that the
penalties against an erring lawyer cannot be imposed if said lawyer is inactive in the
practice of law by any reason such as election in public office. Despite his being inactive in
the practice of law, the fact remains that he is still a member of the legal profession. Hence,
the Court is not precluded from conducting disciplinary investigations against him or
imposing disciplinary sanctions if so warranted.
Page 52
Andaya v. Tumanda

Responsibility; To Society
Doctrine
The issuance of a worthless check indicates his unfitness for the trust and confidence
reposed upon him and his lack of personal honesty and good moral character rendering
him unworthy of public confidence.
Facts
Ruben A. Andaya filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A.
Tumanda for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Tumanda secured a loan worth PHP 500,000 and in exchange issued a post-dated
check in the same amount which was eventually dishonored, as the account was already
closed. Respondent offered a car instead as payment and executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
but failed to actually give the original copy of the Certificate of Registration and failed to
turnover actual possession. It was later discovered by the petitioner that the car was also
sold to another person, which led to their filing of criminal complaints for estafa and
violation of B.P. 22.
Issues
Whether Tumanda should be liable for issuing a worthless check
Held + Ratio
Yes, respondent should know that issuing a worthless check is a violation of BP 22 for which
he may be disciplined under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The issuance of a
worthless check indicates his unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed upon him and
his lack of personal honesty and good moral character rendering him unworthy of public
confidence.
Aside from issuing a worthless check, Tumanda acted in bad faith when he sold to another
person the car he previously sold to complainant as payment for the loan obligation. Such
act is a clear violation of the CPR. It is deceitful conduct which shows his lack of honesty
and good moral character.
Therefore, the Court suspended Atty. Tumanda from the practice of law for three years.
Page 53
AA Total Learning Center v. Caronan
Doctrine
Disciplinary proceedings are reserved only for those in the legal profession and the
respondent is not and was never a member of the bar. Hence, disbarment is not available
to him.
Facts
AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. (AA), represented by Loyda L. Reyes
(Reyes), filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Patrick A. Caronan
(Caronan) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Reyes bought a piece of property from Caronan, who claimed to be a representative of

Maricel Atanacio, the registered owner of the subject property. However, after they had
executed the Deed of Sale, Caronan could no longer be reached. When Reyes contacted
Atanacio to follow up on the transfer of the title, Atanacio denied giving Caronan authority
to purchase the property and maintained that she never received any money from the
transaction.
Issues
Whether the disbarment of Caronan is warranted.
Held + Ratio
No, the complaint is moot. The respondent in the case at bar is the same respondent
involved in another administrative case, wherein he was found guilty of falsely assuming
the name, identity, and academic records of his brother Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law
degree. The assumed name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and Caronan was
prohibited from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations as a lawyer.
He was also barred from being admitted as a member of the Bar in the future. Considering
the foregoing, there is no need to resolve the merits of the case and determine whether or
not respondent is guilty of the violations imputed against him. Disciplinary proceedings are
reserved only for those in the legal profession and the respondent is not and was never a
member of the bar. Hence, disbarment is not available to him.
Considering the foregoing, there is no need to resolve the merits of the case and determine
whether or not "Atty. Patrick Caronan" is guilty of the violations imputed against him.
Disciplinary proceedings conducted by the IBP are reserved only for those belonging in the
legal profession. Clearly, respondent is not and was never a member of the bar. Hence, the
penalty of disbarment is not available to him. AA and Reyes's prayer that respondent be
forever barred from the law practice and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys was
already imposed upon respondent as among his penalties in the previous administrative
case. Administrative cases against lawyers are a class of their own distinct from and may
proceed independently of criminal and civil cases. Double Jeopardy or In Pari Delicto are
also not available as defenses as to bar the disciplinary proceedings against an erring
lawyer.
Page 54
Thus, the case was declared closed and terminated.
Page 55

Chairmans Case Digests (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chairmans Case Digests (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chairmans Case Digests (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jonathan Parungao v. Atty.

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

On the Constitutional prohibition, the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary

Topic: Judicial Ethics; Qualities; Competence and Diligence

Topic: Notarial practice

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

COCOLIFE represented by Guillermo Villanueva (Villanueva) filed a Complaint for

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Topic: Notarial Practice

Topic: Notarial Practice

Therefore, the complaint for disbarment is dismissed for lack of merit.

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Whether the disbarment case has merit

As to the two questioned Secretary's Certificates signed and executed by Pulvera-Page as

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers; Notarial Practice

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers; Grounds

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Moreover, a lawyer can be said to be representing conflicting interests specifically in

Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer Under the Code of Professional

Topic: Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline of Lawyers

Reyes bought a piece of property from Caronan, who claimed to be a representative of

You might also like