UP, May 14, 2022

UPDATES IN LEGAL ETHICS

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MUNTINLUPA CITY, BRANCH 207

1
 Introduction
• The Supreme Court aptly declared : “Despite the
significant changes made in the realm of legal
ethics to adopt to the changing times and
countless jurisprudence applying legal principles,
the Court will not waiver in rebuking deplorable
conduct. Lawyers are always mandated to
maintain the noble ideals and strictest standards
of morality to remain worthy of the office and the
privileges which their license and the law confers
upon them”. (Cristobal vs. Atty. Cristobal,
November 10, 2020).

2
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the
lawyers”. Shakespeare, King Henry VI,
Part II. (uttered by anarchist rebels
whose intent is to overthrow the lawful
government but can only succeed if
lawyers are eliminated)

LADRERA VS. ATTY. OSORIO, JAN. 22,

2020
Respondent lawyer was negligent when
he notarized the Deed of Sale, Deed of
Conditional Transfer and Waiver and
Acknowledgment of Debt and
Promissory Note which were presigned.
Parties should be identified by
government issued picture ID per
2004 Notarial Rule. Deeds should
be notarized with an
Acknowledgement. Affidavit with
a jurat.

4
Another issue is respondent’s
notarial jurisdiction. The deed
was signed in Camarines Sur but
it is not prohibited for have it
notarized in the jurisdiction where
notary public is commissioned so
long as the parties to the deed
personally appear.

5
Respondent lawyer was
suspended for 6 months, his
notarial commission was revoked
with prohibition to be appointed
as Notary Public for 2 years, with
warning.

6
RIGON VS. ATTY. SUBIA, Sept. 7, 2020
The Deed of Absolute Sale was
notarized by respondent lawyer after
the death of the vendors. Moreover, the
docket number pertained to a different
document. Death of the complainant
with a SPA is not a ground to dismiss
the complaint. Furthermore, the case
will still proceed despite the defect
found in the SPA authorizing
complainant to file the administrative
case against respondent.

7
The defense of the respondent
that his signature in the deed was
falsified and forged is not
sufficient for his failure to
present evidence to support his
claim. Neither did he attempt to
obtain the technical examination
of a handwriting expert.
(QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE,
defense in administrative case -
SUBSTANTIAL)
8
The SC held that respondent was
negligent in handling his affairs as a
notary public. Were it not for his
negligence, the subject Deed would
not have borne his notarial seal and
his signature. He was suspended for
6 months with revocation of notarial
commission and prohibited from
being commissioned for 2 years,
plus warning.

9
(COMMISSION IS PERSONAL)
Indeed, assuming that another
person may have forged Atty. Subia's
signature, the mere fact that Atty.
Subia's notarial seal appears on the
document and considering that he
failed to deny the authenticity of the
same, he bears the accountability
and responsibility for the use thereof
even if such was done without his
consent and knowledge.

10
Explanation of respondent is not
credible.
Question : how can the
perpetrator of the alleged forgery
know of the details of the notarial
register of Atty. Subia. Indubitably,
there was negligence on the part
of Atty. Subia in the handling of his
affairs as a notary public.
Respondent was suspended.

11
ATTY. LIM, ET AL., VS. ATTY.
TABILIRAN, SEPT. 16, 2020
Telling client that notarial
commission has expired is not a
defense.
Lawyer should know better.
The SC suspended respondent for 2
years with revocation of
commission, and was permanently
barred from being commissioned as
notary public, and with stern
warning.
12
ANG VS. ATTY. BELARO, DEC. 11,
2019
Lawyer’s signature is falsified but
notarial seal is genuine and
document was entered in the
notarial register.
CTC is no longer accepted as an
identification paper.
No desistance in administrative
case.

13
CARONONGAN VS. ATTY. LADERA, DEC.
11, 2018
Lawyer notarized lease contract
signed only by his mother as lessor but
the lessee was not named. Although no
party was prejudiced, the notarization
was within the prohibited 4th civil
degree.
As a new lawyer, respondent was
admonished. The admission of his fault
was taken in his favour.

14
ATTY. MUNTERO, ET AL. VS. ATTY.
ALBERTO, APRIL 2, 2019
Notarizing document without commission
Allowing non-lawyers to sign motion filed
in court
No MCLE compliance number
Failed to file answer to complaint before
the IBP, an aggravating circumstance.
Penalty – 5 year suspension, perpetual
disqualification to be commissioned as
notary public, warning

15
Lawyers have the duty to
preserve their client's secrets and
confidence, and it outlasts the
termination of the attorney-client
relationship, and continues even
after the client's death.
Respondent was suspended for 6
months. (Parungao vs. Atty.
Lacuanan, March 11, 2020).

16
CONFIDENTIALITY
ADELFA PROPERTIES VS. ATTY. MENDOZA,
OCT. 16, 2019
Atty. Mendoza's actuation of allowing
himself to be interviewed by the media,
thus, utilizing that forum to accuse his
former employer of committing several
illegal activities and divulging information
which he secured in the course of his
employment while he was the
complainant's in-house counsel. No matter
how general the allegations were, his act
was tantamount to a clear breach of the
trust and confidence of his employer. This
is gross misconduct.
17
De Vera vs. Atty. Navarro 1/8/21
DUTY TO SUBMIT NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS
and to submit within 10 days of every month
and to annotate that there was no document
notarized for the week.
Given the evidentiary value accorded to
notarized documents, respondent’s failure to
record the document in his notarial register
corresponds to falsely making it appear that
the document was notarized when, in fact, it
was not. This is supported by the certification
of the Clerk of Court that a copy of the
affidavit was not included in the monthly
report of the respondent. Penalty: suspension
for 6 months, revocation of commission and
disqualification for 2 years.
18
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES IN 2004
NOTARIAL RULE CASES

Elanga, et al. vs. Atty. Pasok, Sept. 29, 2020

Respondent lawyer violated the 2004
Notarial Rule when he received a share from
the proceeds of the mortgage contract he
notarized. This was not even the issue. The
issue was the identity of the signatory to
the deed notarized by respondent.

Notary Public to issue BIR receipts and keep

a journal of fees.

19
A defect in the notarization of the
administrative complaint against the
respondent is not fatal to its validity.
The SC has the authority to look into
relevant issues even not specifically
raised pursuant to its disciplinary
power, especially when the
important details were provided in
the Complaint and the subsequent
pleadings of both parties.

20
IN RE : SOCRATES MARANAN VS.
DOMAGOSO, DEC. 7, 2020
Lawyer’s signature in the
notarized consultancy contract in
the City of Manila is different but
lawyer’s notarial seal is genuine.
Penalty : 6 months suspension, 2
year disqualification as notary
public and warning

21
MISUSE OF LIEN
MIRANDA VS. ATTY. CARPIO, January 15,
2020
(Retaining lien only includes evidence
delivered by client for purposes of
presenting as evidence)
On September 26, 2011, the Court issued a
Decision which suspended respondent
from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, and ordered him to deliver to
complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT
No. 0-94 immediately upon receipt of the
said Decision which he failed to comply.
22
He stated, however, that it was complainant who
failed to claim the said title from respondent. He
reasoned that he cannot release the said title to
anyone but only to the complainant in the
interest of security. He also asserted his
advance age as reason to his inability to
personally deliver the said title. The explanation
is not meritorious. He could have complied with
the decision either personally or through mail.
His belief that his suspension has already been
served is misplaced. The lifting of a lawyer's
suspension is not automatic upon the end of the
period stated in the Court's decision, and an
order from the Court lifting the suspension at the
end of the period is necessary for him to resume
his practice. HELD : Suspension for another 6
months.
23
COLLUSION OF LAWYERS
MARTIN-ORTEGA VS. ATTY. TADENA,
Jan. 29, 2020
(the 4 fold nature of duties of lawyers
should be to the society, courts, legal
profession and lastly to the clients).
Complainant wife alleged collusion
between her lawyers and the lawyers
of her husband, in handling her
petition for declaration of nullity of
her marriage.
24
Complainant alleged that in a
meeting where her lawyers and her
husband’s lawyers, as well as her
husband and herself, were present,
their lawyers discussed their plan of
action on the petition. In support of
her allegation, complainant
presented the email of her husband’s
lawyer (herein respondent) to her
lawyer which reads as follows:

25
Dear Niel (complainant’s counsel);
Yes, we will furnish you a copy of our draft
petition within this week. Regarding the
fees, our client will shoulder the half of
Php300,000 as agreed upon. As to the
decision, just like we said, the process will
go through the regular procedure, but,
certainly[,] it will not take [a] year or so.
Rest assured, same as Zeny (herein
complainant), our client wants this to be
settled soonest, too.
Thank you and keep in touch.
A. A. Tadena (herein respondent).

26
The SC held: “WHEREFORE, the
Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the
Resolution of the Board of Governors
of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines dated May 27, 2017.
Thus, Atty. Angelyn A. Tadena is
hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the
same or equivalent acts shall be
dealt with more severely in the
future.”
The SC directed the Office of the Bar
Confidant to  INITIATE administrative
proceedings against Atty. Angelyn A.
Tadena, Atty. Eric Reginaldo and Atty.
Neil F. Cariaga for their apparent
collusion in the filing of the petition
for annulment of marriage of spouses
Leonardo Ortega, Jr. and Zenaida
Martin-Ortega.

28
LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
LEGASPI VS. ATTY. GONZALEZ, AUGUST
28, 2020
Professional relationship exists even if
it is only for consultation, or even if the
lawyer does not accept to handle the
case or any other case related to the
case referred to him.
Reiterated in ZAMORA VS. GALLANOSA,
SEPT. 14, 2020. Hadjula vs. Atty.
Madianda (2007).

29
DEMEANOR OF LAWYER
HIPOLITO VS. ATTY. ALEJANDRO-ABBAS, et
al, DEC. 10, 2019
Respondent lawyer and others forcibly
entered the property of the complaint and
demolished the structures thereon, shouted
invectives and used abusive language
against complainant. Although respondents
claim to be the rightful owners of the
property, they are without authority to use
force and violence to eject complainant who
was in prior physical possession of it. The
rule of law does not allow the mighty and
the privileged to take the law into their own
hands to enforce their alleged rights.
 Penalty : 6 month suspension 30
SUMMONS DEEMED SERVED
LAPITAN VS. ATTY. SALGADO, Feb. 18, 2020
(do not ignore the IBP)
(address of lawyer)
(CPR Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.)
Respondent lawyer failed to pay his obligation to a
banquet event and issued worthless checks.
Summons was not served upon respondent lawyer
for the reason "RTS-MOVED OUT." Previous personal
services upon said address by the IBP’s process
server indicated that respondent was no longer
residing at said address. In view thereof, the IBP
considered the Summons as "DEEMED SERVED.“
Moreover, estafa and violation of BP 22 were filed
against respondent before the Tagaytay courts.

31
Respondent lawyer violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility by committing
unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct by
not paying his bill to the convention venue and
restaurant, and by willfully disregarding the
lawful processes of courts in the criminal and
administrative cases. He was  DISBARRED and
his name was ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll
of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
(Reiteration : Address appearing in the IBP
Record. It is the duty of the lawyer to update it).

32
ALCANTARA VS. ATTY. SALAS, DEC. 10, 2019
Lawyer changed his address twice but did
not to inform the CA so that the notices
were still sent to his former address. As he
failed to receive the Notices of the CA, the
appeal was dismissed for his failure to file
Brief. His defense that his new address is
stated in the two other related cases where
the present case was consolidated into, is
not meritorious. He cannot blame his client
of his negligence. Penalty : 6 months
suspension.

33
VILLANUEVA. et. al. vs. ATTY, ALENTAJAN,
June 8, 2020
Elements of res judicata are present; hence,
respondent committed forum shopping when
he filed another case without indicating in
the pleading that the old case had already
become final and executory.
Complainant who was not issued SPA to
represent the coconut farmers need not be
the aggrieved party or the real party in
interest. Penalty : 3 month suspension with
warning

34
NEGLIGENCE
Sta. Maria vs. Atty. Atayde, Feb. 12, 2020
It is the duty of a lawyer to inform clients
and court, and not for the client to inform
his lawyer of the progress of the case.

35
Respondent lawyer intentionally did not file
the appeal brief because he was allegedly
informed by one of the complainants that the
parties had already settled their differences
and that complainant Sta. Maria also
peacefully vacated the property. From the
time he filed a notice of appeal until the Court
of Appeals dismissed the appeal, he alleged
that he was trying to contact complainants
regarding the status of the case but failed to
reach them. Neither did they follow up with
him.
Respondent is guilty of negligence. The
relationship between a lawyer and a client
is "imbued with utmost trust and
confidence." 
36
When a lawyer agrees to act as a
counsel, he guarantees that he will
exercise that reasonable degree of
care and skill demanded by the
character of the business he
undertakes to do, to protect the clients'
interests and take all steps or do all
acts necessary therefor. Mere failure to
perform the obligations due a client
is per se a violation. Respondent was
suspended for 6 months.

37
ABOY VS. ATTY. DIOCOS, Dec. 5, 2019
Respondent was the counsel of the
349 Pepsi case which was dismissed
for lack of cause of action. He never
explained this dismissal to his clients
so that they would have been
provided with the opportunity to
decide their next move, and that
respondent let the period of appeal
lapse. Penalty for failure to serve
with competence his client –1 year
suspension.
38
LIMITS OF LAWYER’S LANGUAGE
PARKS VS. ATTY. MISA, FEB. 5, 2020
Complainant was not the party in the
case. It was her father and respondent’s
client who were the opposing parties.
Respondent lawyer, however, drag the
complainant in the case by branding
her as “drug addict”, and a “fraud with
fixed marriage” to humiliate her.
Respondent was admonished with
warning.

39
SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION SUSPENDING AND
ORDERING ATTY. GADON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE
SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED FOR HIS VULGAR RANT
AGAINST A JOURNALIST, Jan. 4, 2022
In a previous case against him filed by a doctor, the
SC reminded lawyers that “though they are entitled
to present their case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and
abusive language.”
In his letter response to the complainant, he stated
“Where do they get these twisted ideas and strange
concepts? Are these people suffering from
Alzheimer’s and what have you? Where do they get
these gutter logic and reasoning.” He was suspended
for 3 months.
He has a pending case on his alleged use of harsh
words that humiliated a journalist. – sui generis.

40
ATTY. AGUIRRE VS. ATTY. REYES, Jan. 8,
2020
(use of appropriate language). Case was
filed on Dec. 1, 1994.
Almost a quarter of century ago,
complainant charged respondent for
making false claims to the Board of
Directors of Banco Filipino in his memo
dated December 20, 1993. Complainant
died during the pendency of the case and
respondent has retired from the practice
due to his age. The memo partly reads:
41
“Undersigned counsel (herein
respondent) was also mainly
instrumental in winning the
Supreme Court case (GR 70054)
to reopen BF. He also made “a
special arrangement” that is
quite confidential x xx”.

42
Respondent also drafted the following memo and
complaint on behalf of the minority stockholders of
Banco Filipino and addressed it to all concerned
individuals at Tala Realty Corporation. He stated:
“Truly, we have here the biggest bank fraud
involving over P1 Billion of Banco Filipino
properties sold by simulated contracts to Tala
controlled by parties who were then BF Directors
and now want the properties for themselves. x
xx .The 3 principals behind/controlling Tala Realty
Corporation should now be guided by their
conscience. They are already very very rich. Their
immense fortune can neither be taken beyond the
grave while their children’s children will still
continue to live in abundance and luxury for all
time.”
43
The SC held: “The thing speaks for itself.
The statements are undoubtedly self-
laudatory and undignified. The standards of
the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills in
a manner similar to a merchant advertising
his goods. The proscription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation
of legal business rests on the fundamental
postulate that the practice of law is a
profession.”

44
Whether in fact these statements are false,
fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive is
another story. Though a lawyer’s language
may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful,
befitting the dignity of the legal profession.
The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of the judicial forum. The Court
reminded the members of the Bar to
abstain from any offensive personality and
to refrain from any act prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or a witness.

45
DEFENSE IS NOT MERITORIOUS
Respondent proudly proclaims
that the statements he uttered
are apt, vivid, picturesque,
proper, and elegant. The Court
finds these statements uncalled
for and malicious, if not,
defamatory. They constitute a
personal attack against the
persons being referred to.
46
The utterances were no longer
relevant to the cases.
Though arguments were privileged
and that lawyers are allowed a
latitude of pertinent remark or
comment in the furtherance of the
causes they uphold and for the
felicity of their clients, they should
not trench beyond the bounds of
relevancy and propriety in making
such remark or comment.

47
RELEVANCY TEST
True, utterances, petitions and
motions made in the course of
judicial proceedings have
consistently been considered as
absolutely privileged, however false
or malicious they may be, but only
for so long as they are pertinent and
relevant to the subject of inquiry.
The test of relevancy has been
stated, thus:
48
x xx. As to the degree of relevancy or
pertinency necessary to make alleged
defamatory matters privileged the courts
favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably
wanting in relation to the subject matter of
the controversy that no reasonable man can
doubt its relevancy and impropriety.”
“In order that matter alleged in a pleading
may be privileged, it need not be in every
case material to the issues presented by the
pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately
related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject
of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial x
xx.
49
Respondent was found guilty of SIMPLE
MISCONDUCT for using intemperate
language, and is required to pay a fine of two
thousand pesos (P2,000.00).

OCAMPO VS. ATTY. LORICA, Sept. 23, 2020

KAPUNAN VS. ATTY. CARRERA, Feb. 19, 2020
Lawyers failed to inform clients of the
outcome of the case and failed to cooperate
in the delivery of the documents to the new
counsel. SC suspended lawyers.

50
IMMORALITY
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE - substantial
1. IGNACIO VS. ATTY. IGNACIO, August
25, 2020
(CPR covers personal relationship)
The Court once again exercises its power
to discipline a lawyer who contracted a
bigamous marriage, engaged in extra-
marital affairs, and sired children with
different women other than his lawful
wife (herein complainant who was then
working in the United States).

51
In his Comment, Atty. Ignacio
argued that complainant knew of
his previous marriage but she
insisted ''for love as well as for
convenience because she can
easily petition him for his
immigration to the US, after
several denials of his tourist visa
application with the US Embassy."

52
Further, Atty. Ignacio maintained
that it was complainant who
insisted on their marriage and
that "weighing the pros and cons,
he approved of her plan that she
comes home for the marriage so
that upon acquiring citizenship,
she will immediately file the
petition for immigration for him."

53
The SC found the defense of the
respondent irrelevant. Foremost, a
lawyer's culpability for gross immorality
is not dependent on whether the other
party knowingly engaged in an immoral
relationship with him. Notably, Atty.
Ignacio was already a lawyer when he
married different women. Thus, he
cannot feign ignorance of the law
requiring that the first marriage must
be annulled before a second marriage
may be validly contracted.
54
Finally, Atty. Ignacio exhibited
reproachable conduct when he
engaged in extra-marital affairs and
sired many children with different
women other than his lawful wife.
Ethical qualifications set by the CPR
is a continuing condition even before
membership to the legal profession.
He was suspended for 5 years.
(Old case : Figueroa vs. Barranco,
July 31, 1997, 26 years sufficient
suffering, he 62 years old took oath.)

55
2. AAA vs. Atty. de los Reyes, Sept. 18, 2018
Two administrative complaints were filed by
complainant AAA seeking the disbarment of
respondent on the grounds of sexual
harassment and gross immoral conduct.
AAA claims that respondent who was her
superior in a government office exploited
her by making her sex slave over a period of
time amounts to gross misbehaviour in
violation of the CPR. Respondent’s defense
of prescription does not apply in
administrative cases. Respondent was
disbarred.

56
3. In the case of Ceniza vs. Atty.
Ceniza, April 10, 2019, respondent
lawyer was disbarred when he
abandoned his legitimate family
and eloped with a married woman.

57
4. In Panagsagan vs. Atty. Panagsagan,
October 1, 2019, the complainant wife
charged respondent lawyer for
abandonment and immorality. The
Supreme Court found the defense of
respondent lawyer that he converted
into Islam to be unmeritorious since his
records were found to be spurious and
that the birth certificate of his 2
children with the woman she was
living with shows that he is Catholic.
Respondent was disbarred.
58
5. Hierro vs. Atty. Nava II (Jan. 7, 2020,
disbarred).

6. Reiterated in Zerna vs. Atty. Zerna, Sept.

8, 2020, the respondent lawyer was
disbarred. In the case, complainant was the
husband of the client of respondent lawyer
with whom he had sexual relations.

59
Complainant is the wife of respondent Atty.
Zerna with whom she has three
daughters. After passing the Bar,
respondent stopped extending financial
support and started having illicit affairs
openly and even sired a child with another
woman. The respondent countered that his
marriage with the complainant is void ab
initio for lack of a valid marriage license as
complainant allegedly forged his signature
and obtained a marriage license without
his personal appearance. Lawyer did not
file petition to declare marriage null and
void.
(totality of evidence satisfies substantial
requirement)
60
Respondent denied the allegations
of immorality. Petition presented
the following pieces of evidence:
Through documentary evidence in
the form of email messages and
photos, among others, as well as
the corroborating affidavits of her
witnesses, complainant was able to
establish respondent's illicit
relations with other women,
through substantial evidence.
61
On the other hand, respondent's main
defense was that his marriage with
complainant was void ab initio, a
defense that is untenable as
respondent, a lawyer, should know
that Article 40 of The Family Code,
which was already in effect at the
time of respondent's marriage to
complainant, which states that the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage
may not be invoked for purposes of
remarriage unless there is a final
judgment declaring such previous
marriage void.
62
Under the law, even if respondent's
defense that his marriage to
complainant was void ab initio
because there was no valid marriage
license were true, their marriage is
still deemed valid unless declared
otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
More reprehensible is respondent's act
of leaving his wife and three children
to maintain an illicit relationship with
another woman with little to no
attempt on his part to be discreet
about his liaison.
63
(TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE)
The email messages between
respondent and his paramour
includes, "take care of yourself
always," "wish you were here,"
"looking forward to that day we
meet," which were suggestive and
showed affection and loving concern
towards each other; that the same
do not point to an exchange of
messages not just between a lawyer
and a client but between lovers.

64
 IMMORALITY

Hosoya vs. Atty. Contado, October 5, 2021.

• Complainant was the former client of respondent
lawyer. He made complainant believe that his
marriage will soon be annulled so that they live
together and had 2 children but respondent still
continued to have relationship with other women.
Respondent who was a town mayor later abandoned
the complainant. Respondent was disbarred. One
issue is the return of the vehicles of complainant
which respondent used during his political campaign.

65
LIMITS OF ISSUES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
1. Amounts loaned to lawyer not intrinsically
related to lawyer client relationship, Dalumay
vs. Atty. Agustin, July 9, 2021.
2. The Court need not delve into the question of
whether respondent was guilty of concubinage,
a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court. It is enough that the
records of this administrative case established
through substantial evidence the findings that
indeed respondent, while married to
complainant, had been carrying on an illicit
affair and living with another woman, a grossly
immoral conduct and only indicative of an
extremely low regard for the fundamental
ethics of his profession.

66
3. Criminal and civil liabilities are not the subject of
administrative cases. It is fitness of the lawyer.

GROSS MISCONDUCT
CABALLERO VS. ATTY. PILAPIL, JAN. 21, 2020
(DO NOT TAKE IBP FOR GRANTED)
Services of respondent lawyer was employed by
complainant for the preparation of a deed of sale of land
and its registration. The payment for capital gains tax and
other fees were given to the lawyer but failed to do so. She
even refused to return the documents entrusted to her and
failed to attend the IBP Hearings. HELD : Suspended for 2
years and ordered to return money with interest.
In RADIAL GOLDEN MARINE SERVICES vs. ATTY.
CABUGAY, June 25, 2019, AC No. 869, the lawyer’s
nonchalant attitude in complying with the IBP’s directives
and the SC resolutions constituted disobedience of lawful
orders. The complaint would have been dismissed as the
allegations were wholly unsubstantiated which would have
warranted its dismissal. Respondent was suspended for 2
years. 67
PORTUGUESE VS. ATTY. CENTRO,
JAN. 26, 2021
Complainant came to know that
the case was decided against him
when the sheriff implemented the
writ of execution. HELD: 3 years
suspension.

68
BERNASCONI VS. ATTY. DEMAISIP, JAN. 19, 2021
Issuance of a guarantee check which bounced. HELD: 2 years
suspension.

Manalang vs. Atty. Buendia, Nov. 10, 2020, on fake decision in

nullity of marriage.

Atty. Honesto Cabarroguis vs. Atty. Basa, March 11, 2020.

Maliciously misspelled name of complainant as “HONESTo”
and “HONEST”. Respondent was suspended for 6 months.

69
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. vs. ATTY.
RIVERA, Nov. 3, 2020
Respondent lawyer was the head of the
Legal Services Department of the
complainant which is engage in the
business of medical care and hospital
management. Respondent defrauded
complainant by pretending to file cases and
collected filing fees and other expenses for
litigation and by taking advantage of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him by
complainant. When he was investigated, it
was found out that he kept fake receipts
and rubber stamps of courts in his office.

70
The SC noted that this is not the first time
Atty. Rivera has been found guilty of deceit
and grave misconduct. His previous
administrative cases show his propensity to
deceive his clients and disregard the CPR. He
was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year for allowing a non-
lawyer to file an unauthorized civil complaint
and to cause the annotation of a notice of lis
pendens, which acts were found not only to be
dishonest and deceitful, but at the same time
an act intended to deceive a court of law.

71
Respondent lawyer was disbarred
and his name was stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys for his reprehensible
acts of misrepresenting to have filed
a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage and furnishing his client
with a fake decision despite due
receipt of professional fees.

72
DOUBLE DISBARMENT???
The SC can still disbar a disbarred lawyer 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 in the event that the disbarred
lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift his
disbarment. In addition, the Supreme 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 its exclusive jurisdiction over other
offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer
while he/she was still a member of the Law
Profession.
73
Respondent was also ordered to pay fine in
the amount of Pl00,000.00. (Continuing
disbarment). (Reiterated in Nicolas vs. Atty.
Laki, February 9, 2021, fine was imposed
rather than double disbarment. Lawyer did
not file the petition for nullity of marriage
despite receipt of attorney’s fee and for
assuring the client that the case shall be
filed in a “friendly court”.). (Footnoted :
failure to file brief despite 245-day
extension, and filing motions for extension
without filing of the required pleading, were
penalized with disbarment.)

74
Compare it with Judge Dumlao vs. Atty.
Camacho, Sept. 4, 2018.
Lawyer was suspended for 2 years. Lawyer
was previously disbarred.

CASTRO VS. ATTY. BARIN, March 2, 2020

Complainant alleged that he did not execute
the affidavit of desistance prepared and
notarized by Atty. Barin who is the lawyer of
the respondent. Lawyer was suspended for 2
months.

75
FORTUNE MEDICARE VS. ATTY. LEE, MARCH
19, 2019
Respondent lawyer intentionally misled
complainant into believing that he had agreed
to the Compromise Agreement. At the early
stages of the negotiation, respondent was
already aware that the P2 Million was
intended to be the full satisfaction of the
judgment award. He, however, allowed the
meeting to take place and thereafter deviated
from the agreement taking the P2 Million
insisting that it was only a partial payment of
his judgment award.

76
As a lawyer, respondent should have
been aware that there are legal
remedies available to him in order to
protect his rights and to secure his
judgment award from being a mere
paper judgment. He, however, opted
to employ deceit and chicanery to
get what he believed he deserved.

77
(DUTY TO SOCIETY, COURT, LEGAL
PROFESSION AND CLIENT)
VANTAGE LIGHTING PHIL, INC. AT AL., VS.
ATTY. JOSE DINO, JR. 
By claiming to complainants that he can
secure the issuance of a TRO by bribing the
judge P150,000.00, Atty. Diño violated
Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:

78
Held : In view of Atty. Diño’s acts of
professional malpractice and gross
misconduct and the gravity of his acts, he
was disbarred. A three-year suspension
from the practice of law is too light a
penalty for a lawyer who, instead of
protecting the integrity and independence
of the court, besmirched its reputation by
claiming that a member of the judiciary is
for sale.

79
FRANCISCO VS. ATTY. REAL, Sept. 1,
2020
(SC reviews administrative cases
against lawyers)
Respondent lawyer was disbarred for
having been disciplined by the
Supreme Court for violation of the
CPR for 3 times in 8 years. The last
violation is his failure to pay rentals
and refusal to leave the premises
despite the finality of the decision.
He is a repeat offender.
80
LAUREL VS. ATTY. DELUTE, Sept. 1,
2020
(Duty to clients)
The respondent lawyer deceived his
client into signing a compromise
agreement which caused them to lose
their inherited parcel of land by taking
advantage of their lack of education.
Complainants were made to believe
that they were to sign a lease contract.

81
As his defense, respondent insisted that
the Compromise Agreement remained to
be valid, considering that the civil case
filed by complainant against him for the
declaration of its nullity had already been
dismissed. He claimed that he did not
manipulate and/or deceive complainant
into signing the same. Moreover,
complainant filed the case nine years
after the alleged deception to sign the
compromise agreement. (Note : laches /
prescription not a defense)

82
Facts, however, show that the case
filed by the complainant was
dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court and
not on the merits; hence res
judicata has not yet set in. (Note :
issues are different).

83
The SC abandoned its earlier
decisions that when a resolution of
an administrative disciplinary case
against a lawyer would necessarily
delve into issues which are proper
subjects of judicial action, it is
prudent for the Court to dismiss the
administrative case without prejudice
to the filing of another one,
depending on the final outcome of the
judicial action.
84
Here, respondent not only neglected
his duty to protect his own client’s
interests by failing to explain the true
import of the Compromise Agreement;
worse, he literally sold out his client's
cause in order to gain personal
benefit. As established by evidence,
it is unrebutted that respondent
received (a) a Pl00,000.90 cut from
the P300,000.00 paid to complainant
and his wife, and (b) a three (3)-meter
wide perpetual road right of way on
the subject land. Respondent lawyer
was disbarred.
85
(new ruling)
The present jurisprudence is that the SC is
not precluded from examining respondent's
actuations in this administrative case if only
to determine his fitness to remain as a
member of the Bar. This is regardless of the
fact that this administrative case involves
similar or overlapping factual circumstances
with a separate civil case.
The SC has consistently held that a lawyer's
administrative misconduct may proceed
independently from criminal and civil cases.

86
BUNTAG, ET AL., VS. ATTY. TOLEDO, FEB.
11, 2019
(advice of the SC)
Complainants filed a Disbarment Complaint
against Atty. Toledo, their former counsel in
several criminal and civil cases. They
claimed that despite knowing that they
were indigents, Atty. Toledo demanded
money from them several times, and invited
“dignitaries” to eat in their house and
demanded from them to serve foods beyond
their financial resources. Complainants,
however, were not able to prove their
allegations by substantial evidence.
87
The case against respondent Atty.
Toledo was dismissed for lack of merit,
however, he was directed to
henceforth reduce into writing all of
his agreements for legal services with
his clients, and is given a stern
warning that a similar infraction in the
future will merit a more severe
response from this Court.

88
September 11, 2018
AKIRA YOSHIMURA vs.  ATTY.
PANAGSAGAN, September 11, 2018
(duty of the lawyer to client and the legal
system)
The SC cannot overlook Atty. Panagsagan's
reprehensible conduct when he asked
complainant the amount of P40,000.00 as
"under the table" money allegedly to
expedite the release of the yellow plates of
the bus units complainant applied for his
transportation business. Respondent even
signed a receipt showing that he took
money in the amount of P40,000.00 for the
said purpose.
89
In no way should a lawyer indulge in
any act that would damage the
public's perception of the
dispensation of justice. The SC found
respondent GUILTY of gross
misconduct, violation of the notarial
law and willful disobedience of lawful
orders, rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal
profession. He was  ORDERED
DISBARRED.

90
Siao vs. Atty. Atup, July 1, 2020. Duty to inform
court of death of client. SC suspended respondent
for 1 month.

Lopez vs. Atty. Ramos, Nov. 24, 2020, tax evasion.

Respondent was suspended for 2 years with
revocation of commission and disqualification to
be appointed as notary public for 2 years.

TELLES VS. ATTY. DANCEL, Sept. 8, 2020

(duty to client, SC not satisfied with explanation )
Despite the four extensions of time to file brief by
the CA, respondent lawyer failed to comply. For
his repeated failure to comply with the orders of
the SC to file his comment for his disbarment
case, the SC imposed a fine and ordered the NBI
to arrest him.
91
It was only then that he submitted a
one-page short comment that he is
seriously ill with diabetes. He was
disbarred. The recommendation of the
IBP was suspension for 3 years was
disregarded.

BERNAL VS. ATTY. PRIA, Oct. 7, 2020,

Redeeming forclosed property without
authority. Suspended for 2 years.

92
REYES VS. ATTY. GUBATAN, Nov. 3, 2020
(Lawyer not to take matters in his own hand)
Complainant and respondent lawyer were close
friends since their school days so that it was
easy for respondent to borrow money from
complainant. Complainant admitted that
respondent lawyer rendered legal services to
him and the company complainant put up. When
complainant demanded payment, respondent
claimed that he unilaterally appropriated
complainant’s money which came into his
control as payment of his atty.’s fee.
Respondent did not even give consideration to
the collection cases filed by complainant
against him in court which were even decided
against respondent.

93
The IBP did not order respondent to
return the money borrowed since
they were contracted in in his private
capacity. This is not intrinsically
related to lawyer-client relationship.
Lawyer was suspended for 3 months
with warning.

94
LAWYER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Pelipe vs. Atty. Avila, August 14, 2019
Complainant was the president of a
bus company and respondent was an
officer of the LTO.A lawyer's holding
of public office does not deprive the
SC’s jurisdiction to discipline and
impose penalties upon him or her for
unethical conduct.

95
Respondent lawyer was caught in an entrapment
operation when he met with the complainant at
the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant to receive the
protection money that he demanded from
complainant. His subsequent receipt of the
marked money-paid to him in the guise of
protection money and confirmed by fluorescent
specks and smudges on his hands-attests to how
he received a bribe. Penalty : IBP recommended
suspension for 2 years but SC imposed
disbarment.
(2021 decision of the SC on three public
prosecutors as published in newspapers . There
is a distinction between discretionary duties of
lawyers and acts that violate the CPR)

96
RESPECT TO A BROTHER LAWYER
CANETE VS. ATTY. PUTI, August 14, 2019
Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla" in a
condescending manner. The term in itself is
not a source of offense as it is merely
descriptive. However, when "bakla" is used
in a pejorative and deprecating manner, then
it becomes derogatory.
Note : The SC approved the Guidelines on
the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the
Judiciary anf Gender-Fair Courtroom
Etiquette, February 15, 2022.

97
Atty. Puti also made the following
statement: "Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor?
Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo." Such
remark was clearly unprofessional,
especially since Atty. Puti used to be a
public prosecutor. By nonchalantly
accusing the prosecutors of having
been bribed or otherwise acting for a
valuable consideration, Atty. Puti
overstepped the bounds of courtesy,
fairness, and candor which he owes to
the opposing counsels. He also made
threats to the court.
Penalty : Reprimand with warning
98
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. UNTIAN, April 10, 2019
(Sexual harassment)
Complainant Student No. 1 claimed
that respondent initially expressed
amorous interest when he sent her
flowers anonymously through another
law student, then often texted her with
romantic messages, poems, love notes
and sweet nothings.

99
Complainant Student No. 2
narrated that respondent
showed her a photograph
revealing only the face of a
woman and asked her if she
knew who the woman in the
picture who looked like her.

100
Complainant Student No. 3 recounted
that in one of her recitations during
respondent's class, she clarified a
question propounded to her saying "Sir,
come again?" Respondent retorted
"What? You want me to come again? I
have not come the first time and don't
you know that it took me five minutes
to come, and you want me to come
again?" Penalty : 5 year suspension
and barred from teaching for 10 years

101
Lim vs. Atty. Mendoza, July 16, 2019
(flip flopping lawyer)
Complainant wife claimed that during
the lifetime of her husband, he used
conjugal funds to organize several
dummy corporations using his
mistresses and employees as
incorporators and/or stockholders.
Respondent admitted in his capacity as
a notary public and counsel of the
corporations in an affidavit he notarized
that the properties acquired were from
the conjugal funds.
102
Respondent later changed his
pronouncement and alleged that the
statements in the documents he
notarized and his knowledge were
mere hearsay and that he is the
owner of the shares of stocks in the
corporation as actual payments to
him for his services and advances.

103
With the incompatibility of the two
positions, it is clear that respondent has
been less than truthful in at least one
occasion.
It was also established that as a notary,
respondent notarized affidavits which in
effect attested to repeated violations of
the Corporation Code, without any
showing that he even attempted to
caution his clients of the illegality of
their acts. He also did not deny using
offensive language in his pleadings.

104
Finally, the IBP Report noted that
respondent's Position Paper lacked
Professional Tax Receipt Number, IBP
Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of
Attorneys Number and his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE),
in clear violation of Bar Matter Nos.
1132 and 1922. Penalty : IBP
recommended suspension of 2 years
but the SC imposed disbarment.

105
NEGLIGENCE
CAS vs. Atty. Librada, August 6, 2019
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the
case for his failure to attend pre-trial.
He did not attach in his motion an
affidavit of service and even set the
hearing on a Saturday (instead of a
Friday).  

106
Moreover, he did not furnish a copy of
his motion to the opposing party. He
reasoned out that his failure to attend
hearing was the failure of the client to
provide transportation expenses and
the mistake of his secretary. He also
concealed the dismissal of the case
from his client. Penalty : suspension
for 2 years.

107
JUDGE MACAPAGAL VS. ATTY. YOUNG, July 29,
2019
(Use of appropriate language)
Relative to an expropriations case, respondent
lawyer sent a letter to complainant Judge
Macapagal which states, among other matters:
“x xx with all due respect, but much to our
regret, we wish to make manifest that we will
be compelled to file an administrative
complaint against you before the Office of the
Court Administrator as well as a criminal
complaint for "knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment" if you should persist in your
stubborn actuation of implementing the writ of
possession/writ of demolition against non-
parties to the expropriation.”
108
It appears that even before the said
case was unloaded to Judge
Macapagal in 2008, the writ of
possession had already been issued by
the previous presiding judge. Judge
Macapagal granted the plaintiffs
motion for demolition and issued the
corresponding writ, which the sheriff
served on the occupants of the subject
properties.
Penalty : Reprimand with stern warning
due to lawyers advanced age.

109
VELASCO VS. ATTY. CAUSING, MARCH
2, 2021
Complainant is the petitioner-husband
in the declaration of nullity of his
second marriage while respondent is
the counsel of complainant’s second
wife. Respondent lawyer sent a direct
message to complainant’s son in the
Facebook with the following statement:
"[p]aki tignan mo ang iyo ng ama,iho
at huwag mo sya ng gagayahin ha”.

110
He also described complaint as
"polygamous, ""criminal, ""dishonest,
""arrogance, ""disgusting,“ and
"cheater”. Respondent defended the
publication as a part of his freedom
of the press as a journalist blogger.
Penalty : 1 year suspension with
warning.
Note : Proceedings in Family Courts
are confidential.

111
RET. JUDGE ALPAJORA VS. ATTY.
CALAYAN, Jan. 10, 2018
Respondent filed numerous
administrative, civil and criminal
cases/compliant against judges, and
opposing parties.

112
Respondent attributed to complainant
judge ill-motives that were not
supported by the record or had no
materiality to the case. He charged
complainant judge with coaching
adverse counsel on account of their
alleged close ties, inefficiency in
dealing with his pleadings, acting with
dispatch on the adverse party's
motions, and partiality to the plaintiffs,
and in arriving at an order without
predicating the same on legal bases
under the principle of stare decisis. 
113
The SC imposed the penalty of 2 year
suspension with stern warning.
This was the same issue in Executive Judge
de Leon-Diaz vs. Atty. Calayan, Nov, 28,
2019. Respondent was warned but the
penalty in Judge Alpajora vs. Calayan was
not imposed in the second case filed by
Judge de Leon-Diaz for being double
penalty.

114
IN RE : RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 11,
2017, Sept. 28, 2020
Respondent lawyer Jerome Norman Tacorda
filed an administrative case against
Catarman, Norther Samar RTC Judge
Esidera. For his failure to sustain his charges
against the judge, respondent was
suspended for 6months for having “indulged
in deliberate falsehood.” and bad faith.

115
The lawyer claimed that he merely
asserted the right of his client to a
speedy disposition of the case.
Penalty: 6 months suspension with
warning.`

116
SUI GENERIS
CRISTOBAL VS. ATTY. CRISTOBAL, Nov.
11, 202
Complainant wife alleged that she is a
victim of violence against women by her
husband, herein respondent. The instant
administrative case is hinged on Atty.
Cristobal's violent and abusive behavior
towards his wife (herein complainant).
The dismissal of the criminal case filed by
complainant against him does not
exculpate him from administrative liability.

117
The SC held that it is not a preponderance
of evidence that is needed in
administrative cases. It substantial
evidence - that which is more than a mere
scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.
Complainant’s affidavit of desistance was
set aside since Police Blotter and medical
certificates were presented to prove the
injuries suffered by complainant. This did
not absolve administrative liability of
respondent. Penalty : 3 months suspension
with warning
118
 Biliran vs. Atty. Bantugan 2/9/21

NO RES JUDICATA / Imprescriptible

The complainant and respondent are

both lawyers and members of IBP-
Bohol. Complainant charged
respondent with misuse of finds and
property. The IBP dismissed the
complaint without prejudice to its
refiling with sufficient evidence. In
disposing of the complaint, the SC
stated: 119
“The Court, however, must clarify that
its ruling is limited to the sufficiency of
the evidence presented against Atty.
Bantugan and is not a final
pronouncement as to his innocence of
the charges imputed against him.

120
WHEREFORE, premises considered
the Court DISMISSES the Letter-
Complaint against respondent Atty.
Danilo A. Bantugan for lack of
sufficient evidence.”

121
MALVAR VS. ATTY. FEIR, MARCH 5, 2018
(limits of demand letter)
Petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment
against respondent alleging that he
received threatening letters from Feir
stating that should he fail to pay the sum of
Pl8,000,000.00 to his client, a criminal
complaint for Falsification of Public
Documents and Estafa, a civil complaint for
Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title,
and an administrative complaint for the
revocation of his license as a physician
would be filed against him. 

122
According to complainant, respondent’s
demands were tantamount to blackmail or
extortion due to the fact that respondent
tried to obtain something of value by means
of threats of filing complaints.

It is undisputed that complainant is the buyer

of the properties subject herein and that
respondent’s client, is one of the owners of
the same. It is also undisputed that said
subject properties are already registered
under complainant’s name but the
respondent’s client has yet to receive the
remaining balance of its purchase price.

123
To the Court, this fact alone is enough
reason for respondent to send the demand
letters to complainant. The demand letters
were based on a legitimate cause or issue,
which is the alleged failure of complainant
to pay the full amount of the consideration
in the sale transaction as well as the
alleged falsified Deed of Sale used to
transfer ownership over the lots subject of
the instant case. Respondent was simply
acting in compliance with his lawyer's oath
to protect and preserve the rights of his
client.
Complaint was dismissed.
124
comparison with earlier case)
PENA VS. ATTY. APARICHO, June 25, 2007,

In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is

charged with violation of the CPR for writing
a demand letter the contents of which
threatened complainant with the filing of
criminal cases for tax evasion and
falsification of documents. Respondent’s
client claim that she was illegally
terminated. Pertinent parts of the letter
reads:

125
“But if these are not paid on August 10,
2005, we will be constrained to file and
claim bigger amounts including moral
damages to the tune of millions under
established precedence of cases and
laws. In addition to other multiple
charges like:

126
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos
of income not reported to the
government.
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of
Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to
operate due to violations of laws.

These are reserved for future actions in

case of failure to pay the above amounts
as settlements in the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).
127
Respondent cannot claim the
sanctuary provided by the privileged
communication rule under which a
private communication executed in
the performance of a legal duty is
not actionable. The privileged nature
of the letter was removed when
respondent used it to blackmail
complainant and extort from the
latter compliance with the demands
of his client.

128
Indeed, the writing of demand letters
is a standard practice and tradition in
this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a
lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent
relationship that he has with his
client, the principal.

129
Thus, in the performance of his role as
agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce
his client's claim and to take all the steps
necessary to collect it, such as writing a
letter of demand requiring payment within a
specified period. However, the letter in this
case contains more than just a simple
demand to pay. It even contains a threat to
file retaliatory charges against complainant
which have nothing to do with his client's
claim for separation pay.
Penalty : Reprimand with stern warning.

130
PARUNGAO VS. LACUANAN, March 11,
2020
(conflict of interest)
Respondent was the counsel of the
Parungao spouses. When the spouses
separated, respondent lawyer became
the counsel of the wife in filing
criminal cases for concubinage,
physical injuries and threats, and later
declaration of nullity of marriage
against her husband (herein
complainant).

131
Complainant failed to establish that
respondent has confidential
information which the latter acquired
through their connection or previous
employment and which can be used
against him in the pending civil and
criminal proceedings instituted by
complainant’s wife.

132
WHAT IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Minas vs. Atty. Doctor, Jan. 28, 2020
The mere relation of attorney and client
does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. The client must intend for
the communication to be confidential. A
confidential communication refers to
information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means, which, so far as
the client is aware, discloses the
information to no third person other than
one reasonably necessary for the
transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it
was given.
133
Complainant generally averred that in
the course of their professional and
personal relations, he had shared with
respondent confidential information
as regards his marital and family life
as well as his businesses and
properties. However, these are merely
his bare allegations, unsubstantiated
by any piece of evidence, and
disputed by respondent lawyer.

134
CASTRO VS. ATTY. BARIN, MARCH 2,
2020
Conflict of interest.
Lawyer prepared and notarized
affidavit of desistance of opposing
party in favour of his client. (Lawyer
acted without authority of the client).

135
Tan vs. Atty. Alvarico, Nov. 3, 2020
No conflict of interest if the client
was the one who sent his lawyer
to enter into compromise
agreement with the opposing
party. In this case, complainant in
a theft case alleged that
respondent approached him and
told him that he can convince his
client to settle provided that he
gives him 15% commission.
136
FALSE TESTIMONY
Berzola vs. Atty. Baldovino, Nov. 3,
2020
Respondent lawyer who assisted a
witness to impersonate another, and
presented a false address of the
complainant who was abroad in an
annulment of marriage, was disbarred.

137
SENG vs. Atty. PANGAN, September 16, 2020
(CPR penalizes the giving of advice by a
lawyer contrary to law and jurisprudence.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct).
Complainant was respondent lawyer’s client
in the settlement of the estate of her son
who committed suicide. After the death of
her son, she discovered that her daughter-in-
law was previously married with a daughter
from her first husband but registered
(delayed registration) as the child of her
deceased son.

138
FIRST CHARGE
The complainant charged respondent
for gross misconduct and for violation
of the Lawyer’s Oath, specifically for
unlawful conduct in giving her wrong
advice leading to her exclusion of the
properties of her deceased son.
 

139
Complainant alleged that parents
should receive half of the estate since
the son had no legitimate heir.
Complainant further charged that the
act of the respondent was to favor her
daughter-in-law and her daughter from
her first husband. Complainant also
discovered that respondent later
married her daughter in law.

140
SECOND CHARGE
The complainant also charged
respondent for unprofessional dealings
when he (respondent lawyer) used
abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper language when he alleged the
following in his Counter-Affidavit on
the complaint filed by complainant
against him before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila:

141
“Here we could see who is so
persistent (in Tagalog "atat na atat) to
sell the property of the deceased
barely less than a month after his
death. This confirms the character of
the complainant xxx, who right after
the death of the deceased” her son“
and before his cadaver could even be
put inside the coffin already asked him
about the money and other properties
left by her dead son.” Respondent also
described complainant as “a devil with
a devil smile”
142
The SC found the defense of
respondent lawyer unmeritorious.

There is lawyer-client relationship

between him and complainant even
if did not receive a single centavo
for his services, even if true, is
immaterial.

143
 Respondent abandoned complainant's
cause when he disregarded the law on
succession and favoured
complainant’s former daughter-in-law
and her daughter who was her child
with her first husband. He violated
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for engaging in
dishonest, deceitful and unlawful
conduct. He disregarded Article 997 of
the Civil Code

144
which reads: “ When the widow or
widower survives with legitimate
parents or ascendants, the surviving
spouse shall be entitled to one-half of
the estate, and the legitimate parents
or ascendants to the other half”.

145
THIRD CHARGE
Respondent lawyer violated the CPR
and the Lawyer’s Oath when he
criminally charged his own client,
herein complainant, and used a
document entrusted to him in
confidence in filing the case.

146
FOURTH CHARGE
Respondent lawyer used intemperate
language in his counter-affidavit by
describing the complainant as “atat
na atat” and “a devil with a devil
smile”. Penalty : suspension for 1 year
in one case and admonition in the
other case.

147
PALACIO VS. ATTY. LINSANGAN, et al., July
10, 2018
(ambulance chasing)
Complainant was an overseas Filipino worker
seafarer who was seriously injured during
work when he fell into the elevator shaft. He
was flown to the Philippines to continue his
medical treatment and rehabilitation. While
confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital,
paralegals of respondents' law office,
approached complainant and convinced him
to engage the services of respondents' law
office in order to file a suit against his
employers for indemnity. 
148
After several visits from the paralegals
and respondents, complainant executed
(1) an Attorney-Client Contract, and (2) a
Special Power of Attorney, where he
engaged the legal services of
respondents and agreed to pay
attorney's fees of 35% of any recovery
or settlement. After execution of the
contract and the collection of the
benefits, respondent offered the amount
collected but complainant refused to
receive it because the greater amount of
the payment was appropriated by the
respondent. 149
Complainant filed a letter-
complaint with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) and requested
that an investigation be conducted
and the corresponding disciplinary
action be imposed upon respondents
for committing the following unethical
acts:

150
the amount collected in the Singapore
case worth US$95,000.00, and in
offering only US$20,756.05; (2)
depositing complainant's money into
respondent’s own account; and (3)
engaging in "ambulance chasing" by
deploying their agents to convince
complainant to hire respondents'
services while the former was still
bedridden in the hospital.

151
The SC held : The practice of law is a
profession and not a business.
The case is an example of ambulance
chasing. Lawyers in making known
their legal services must do so in a
dignified manner. They are prohibited
from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers. The CPR explicitly
states that "[a] lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business." 

152
Corollary to this duty is for lawyers
not to encourage any suit or
proceeding for any corrupt motive or
interest. Thus, "ambulance chasing,"
and “barratry” or the solicitation of
almost any kind of business by an
attorney, personally or through an
agent, in order to gain employment, is
unethical.

153
Canon 16 and its rules remind a lawyer to:
(1) hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his
possession; (2) deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon
demand subject to his retaining lien; and
(3) account for all money or property
collected or received for or from his client.
(Reiterated in Ramo vs. Atty. Ferrer,
November 10, 2020. Lawyer received the
payment from the losing party but failed to
remit the total amount to his client, herein
complainant. Held : Suspension for 6
months).

154
Money collected by a lawyer on a
judgment rendered in favor of his client
constitutes trust funds and must be
immediately paid over to the client. As
he holds such funds as agent or
trustee, his failure to pay or deliver the
same to the client after demand
constitutes conversion. Thus,
whenever a lawyer collects money as a
result of a favorable judgment, he must
promptly report and account the
money collected to his client. 
155
A claim for attorney's fees may be
asserted either in the very action in
which the services of a lawyer had
been rendered, or in a separate action.
Respondents, instead of forcibly
deducting their share, should have
moved for the judicial determination
and collection of attorney's fees. The
fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for
his attorney's fees on money in his
hands collected for his client does not
entitle him to unilaterally appropriate
his client's money for himself.
156
Worse, respondents allegedly kept the
money inside the firm's vault for two
years until they were made aware of
the disciplinary complaint against
them before the IBP-CBD.
Penalty : Attys. Pedro L. Linsangan and
Gerard M. Linsangan were SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for TWO
YEARS  with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in
the future will be dealt with more
severely.
157
Santa Maria vs. Atty. Tolentino, June
29, 2020
(duty to the court)
Respondent lawyer was reprimanded
for his failure to inform the CA of the
death of his client within the period
provided by the Rules despite his
reason that the relatives of the
deceased did not provide him with the
Death Certificate upon demand, and to
file appellee’s brief.

158
DAVID VS. ATTYS. RONGCAL, TARIO,
SORIQUEZ, POMER, SANTOS-LAYUG,
VILLANUEVA, June 23, 2020
(Filing of frivolous motions)
In 2005, the decision of the MTC in
forcible entry (issue is possession) case
became final and executory. It took 7
years for the MTC to issue a writ of
execution because of the filing of
numerous motions by the respondent
lawyers on the ground that their client
was issued CLOA (certificate of land
ownership) which they consider as a
supervening event.
159
Held : Respondent lawyers were guilty
of misconduct for unduly delaying the
execution of judgment. Issue in the
instant case is not ownership but mere
possession. The lawyers were
suspended for one year, except for
Atty. Rongcal who was disbarred for
having been previously sanctioned for
immorality.
Note : Possession and ownership are
different concepts in property.

160
SPOUSES CUNA VS. ATTY. ELONA, June 23,
2020
Complainants are the occupants in the
concept of owners of a piece of land
acquired through the efforts of the
respondent who is a DAR Trial lawyer. The
title however was retained by the
respondent. Respondent made
complainants sign a SPA giving him
absolute authority to sell their property by
taking advantage of complainants’ poverty,
the lack of ability to mentally grasp the
effect of the document, and his moral and
intellectual ascendancy over the
complainants, as he did not explain the
contents of the SPA. 161
Respondent then entered into a contract
to sell the property and was able to
collect millions of pesos from the buyer
and gave complainants measly amount.
During the pendency of the administrative
case, respondent filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings on the ground that
he intends to file a civil complaint for
collection of a sum of money from
complainants. but court records show
that he did not file it.

162
HELD: Even assuming that he indeed
filed the civil case, it is separate from
administrative case. The intended civil
case cannot suspend the
administrative case which are different
from each other. Lawyer was disbarred
for unauthorized practice of law and for
grave misconduct.

163
JUSTICE LAMPAS-PERALTA, ET AL.
VS. ATTY. RAMON, Mar. 5, 2019
For faking a decision of the CA,
respondent was disbarred.

164
PUNO VS. ATTY. VIAJE, Feb. 26, 2020
Respondent who was a counsel of the
GRDC (a corporation), took advantage
of his knowledge as a lawyer to gain
personal benefit at the expense of
the complainant, the corporation and
its stockholders by forcing
complainant to execute a voting trust
agreement in his favour.

165
He made himself the majority
stockholder and a director by illegally
holding a special stockholders meeting
without the required notice and
without having the necessary
qualifications of a director at the time
of his election. Respondent’s group of
other elected directors did not even
have at least one share of capital
stock.
Penalty : Disbarment.

166
FORUM SHOPPING
TAPANG VS. ATTY. DONAIRE, NOV. 18,
2020, (ponente Justice Inting) The SC
reiterated Villanueva vs. Atty.
Alentajan, June 8, 2020, (ponente
Justice Hernando) for forum shopping
with 3 month suspension, and Radial
Golden vs. Atty. Cabugay, June 25,
2019, En Banc (for failure to comply
with the SC and IBP Order).
Penalty : 2-year suspension.

167
In Atty. Go vs. Atty. Terruel, Nov. 4,
2020, (ponente Justice Hernando), the
SC suspended respondent for 6
months for violation of the CPR and
Lawyer’s Oath. Forum shopping exists
when the case is filed even if it has not
yet been raffled or assigned to the
court after a raffle of cases.
Respondent suspended for 6 months,

168
LAWYERS SHOULD UPHOLD THE LAW
LOPEZ VS. ATTY. RAMOS, Nov. 24, 2020
Despite knowledge of the illegal purpose of
evading the payment of proper taxes (capital
gains tax) due, respondent proceeded to
notarize the second deed of sale with a much
lower value. Instead of accommodating the
request of his client, respondent, being a
member of the legal profession, should have
stood his ground and not yielded to the
request of his client for the second
execution of a deed of sale. Respondent
should have been more prudent and
unfaltering in his solemn oath neither to do
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.

169
When respondent gave the second
deed of sale the same notarization -
page and book numbers as the first,
respondent violated the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Moreover, he did not
check identity of the seller. He merely
relied on the CTC.

170
RECEIPT OF NOTICE
ANG vs. ATTY. BELARO, DEC. 11. 2020
VALMONTE vs. ATTY. QUESADA, Dec. 4,
2019
Lawyers failed to prove that service of
notice was highly irregular.

PASAMONTE VS. ATTY. TENEZA, June 9,

2020. Lawyer compelled his client to marry
his sister-in-law despite knowledge that
client is a married man. Lawyer himself
contracted a bigamous marriage. Lawyer
was disbarred for acting and supporting
acts aimed at defiance of the law.
171
PRESUMPTION OF MISAPPROPRIATION
CABALLERO VS. ATTY. PILAPIL, Jan. 21,
2020
Respondent received money for payment of
capital gains tax and for issuance of title.
Failure to return money held by respondent
upon demand of client gives rise to
presumption of misappropriation and
violation of trust.
For failure to comply with resolution to file
comment, lawyer was ordered to pay fine
for violation of CPR and Lawyer’s Oath.
Penalty : 2 year suspension, return amount
and warning.
172
PALALAN CARP Farmers Vs. ATTY. DE LA ROSA,
Aug. 14, 2019
In a previous case, lawyer was suspended for
borrowing money from client and even denied it.
Lawyer was described “Greedy lawyer”. "A
mistake repeated more than once is a
decision."2 And there is a variation to that. "You
can't make the same mistake twice. The second
time you make it, it's not a mistake anymore, it's
a choice. ENOUGH!"3 A mistake is corrected at
once; and not repeated. More so when the
mistake has already been called out and heavily
penalized.

173
In the instant case, Palalan CARP
Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative
hired his services in 1997 in a civil case
in the annulment of a Transfer
Certificate of Title over a 111.4-hectare
land situated in Barangay Lumbia,
Cagayan de Oro City, in the
Cooperative’s name. In 2002, the
Cooperative executed a special power of
attorney (SPA) authorizing him to do
certain acts but revoked the same in
2007. Despite the revocation of the
SPA, Atty. Dela Rosa still brokered the
sale of the property. HELD : DISBARRED
174
ISSUANCE OF BOUNCING CHECK
VILLA VS. ATTY. DEFENSOR-VELEZ,
DEC. 5, 2019
Failure to appear in mandatory
conference before the IBP
Failure to pay just debt.
Disrespect to IBP – fine P10,000.00
Penalty : 1-year suspension and
warning

175
BORROWING MONEY
BUENAVENTURA VS. ATTY. GILLE, DEC. 9, 2020
Complainant sought the service of respondent
lawyer regarding a property mortgage to her.
Mere borrowing money even with the
acquiescence of the client is unethical, except
if client is protected by independent advice or
for other legal purposes. Intention to pay is
immaterial.
Payment of bouncing check. Lawyer used of a
fake title as collateral.
Right to remain silent does not apply in
administrative case.
Fined P5,000.00 for disobedience to orders of
IBP.
Penalty : Disbarment.
176
• Dillon vs. Atty. Quiroz, Jan. 12 2021
• Signing of JA in behalf of client by lawyer with
SPA
• De Guzman vs. Atty. Quiroz, June 17, 2020
• Lawyer failed to appear in pre-trial and to submit
pre-trial brief, case was dismissed with prejudice.
Excuse of lawyer was traffic which was not
accepted by the trial court and which was
affirmed by the SC. Lawyer suspended for 1 yr.
• MICA Security Agency vs. Atty. Gonzales-
Santiago, April 28, 2021
• Negligence and lack of sklll. Cases handled by
lawyer were dismissed. In one of the cases, the
respondent changed her theory. In another, she
failed to file Position Paper. SC adopted
preponderance of evidence to impose sanction.

177
Pasamonte vs. Atty. Teneza, June 9, 2020, lawyer
contracted second marriage, he also compelled
his client to marry his sister-in-law despite
knowing that client is married, and that he was
witness (ninong) in illegal marriages. Lawyer
was disbarred.
• AGATON VS. ATTY. CRUZ, May 4, 2021
• For grave misconduct constituting betrayal of trust.
Respondent lawyer made complainant believe that
she can still redeem her ancestral house.
• Lawyer required complainant to post a bond in the
form of a check for the reacquisition of her ancestral
home. The check was deposited in court as bond in
another case handled by respondent. When the other
case was finished, respondent withdrew the bond
and the check was encashed by the respondent.
• Lawyer was disbarred.

178
Genato vs. Atty. Mallari, October 15, 2020. The SC held
that respondent lawyer unduly delayed the case and
impeded the execution of judgment. He even challenged
Justice Bruselas to a public debate. Lawyer was
disbarred.

• VEGA, ET AL. VS. ATTY. JURADO, ET AL., Oct. 14,

2020
• Respondent lawyer was the head of the OGCC. He
rendered a legal opinion that justified the grant of a
75 year gaming franchise contrary to RA 9490 and RA
7916. Though the SC did not find malice and ill will of
the respondents, he was admonished for impropriety.
SC stated that lawyers should avoid impropriety and
the appearance thereof.

• Atty. Go vs. Atty. Terruel, Nov. 4, 2020, Mere filing of a

case involving same parties, cause of action and
reliefs prayed for, constitutes forum shopping. (Carlet
vs. CA, 275 SCRA 110, cases must be pending).
179
• PARTSCH vs. ATTY. VITORILLO, January 4,
2022
• Respondent claimed ownership over an 800
sq. meter beachfront lot In Cagayan de Oro
and offered to sell it to complainant who is
a Swiss national. Complainant made a down
payment with respondent’s commitment
that he will execute a deed of absolute sale
in 3 months when the lot will be finally
registered in his name. The commitment of
the respondent did not materialize.
Respondent reasoned out that the court
was too slow, that the lot was his
compensation for legal services even
though the court decided against the claim
of his client. Respondent refused to refund
the down payment of the complainant. 180
 Respondent was suspended for three years from
the practice of law with stern warning. He was
found guilty for executing a contract to sell which
expressly named himself as the seller and absolute
owner of the subject property, and even openly
blamed the trial court's supposed delay in resolving
the pending ownership dispute over the lot and its
eventual dismissal of the case that prejudiced his
expectancy. In so doing, he demeaned the integrity
of legal processes and tarnished the image of
impartiality of the courts. 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, respondent is presumed to know
this. Despite being equipped with such knowledge,
respondent still marketed the subject property for
sale to Partsch, a Swiss national.
The prayer of complainant’s downpayment was
adjudged misplaced.

181
BATAAN SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING
COMPANY INC., versus ATTY. ANTHONY
JAY B. CONSUNJI, January 4, 2022
Complainant claims that respondent
received excessive cash advances for his
professional fees, titling complainant’s
unregistered land and reconstitution of lot
titles, and payment of taxes. He further
failed to render an accounting and
liquidation by presenting official receipts in
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

182
Complainant was able to
successfully secure the re-issuance
or reconstitution of the subject titles
with the help of other lawyers,
instead of Atty. Consunji, only for
the amount of P200,000.00.

183
Respondent failed to keep records of his
transactions with clients as a matter of
prudence and due diligence despite
ethical and practical considerations
requiring lawyers to issue receipts to their
clients, even if it was not demanded, and
to keep copies of the said receipts for his
own records.

184
The SC warned that lawyers shall impose and
charge reasonable and proper attorney's fees
in accordance with the efforts and time spent
in the case. A lawyer shall not unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of the client. It must
always be remembered that the practice of
law is not a business and a lawyer plays a vital
role in the administration of justice. Hence, it
is of utmost importance that lawyers maintain
an honest and fair dealings with its clients. In
this case

185
The SC found that respondent charged
exorbitant legal fees to his client despite non-
fulfillment of his legal obligation. Complaint
was able to process the reconstitution of the
lost titles with the help of another lawyer only
for the amount of P200,000.00 while
respondent charged P2,730,000.00 for the
same engagement but still failed to accomplish
the reconstitution. Having failed to complete
hisengagement, respondent should have
returned the excess legal fees based on the
principle of quantum meruit and in accordance
with the customary fees actually paid for the
said transaction. 186
Penalty : Respondent was DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name was ORDERED
STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.
Further, he was ORDERED to return to
complaint the amount of P12,312,781.42
intended for the payment of certain taxes to
the Province of Bataan and the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, the amounts of
P'3,150,000.00 and P2,530,000.00 as excess
legal fees he received from the latter for his
failure to complete his engagements which
shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per
annum from the finality of this Decision until
full payment. He is further DIRECTED to submit
proof of payment to the Court within ten (10)
days from his full payment.
187
VILLAMOR vs. ATTY. JUMAO-AS, February 15,
2022.

On December 9, 2020, the SC suspended

respondent from the practice of law for two
years for representing conflicting interests. He
filed a motion for reconsideration. The SC
reduced his suspension to one year based on
the following grounds: that respondent was a
new lawyer at that time, and that he realized
his mistake and settled his monetary
obligations during the mediation stage. The SC
further took into account the abnormal situation
created by the pandemic where the means of
living was difficult to meet.

188
MONTINOLA vs. ATTY. RUBRICO, ET AL., July 14, 2021

Respondent lawyer admitted that he did not

require the presence of the signatories when he
notarized the subject deed. Instead, he merely
confirmed from his secretary that the
document was duly authenticated and signed
by the parties, and after being assured that it
was, he notarized it because of his trust to a
fellow lawyer who was one of the signatories
and as accommodation to the law office which
he considered as a neighbor and friend.

189
Respondent was found liable for notarizing
the subject deed despite the absence of the
signatories therein. Respondent was
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) months, REVOKED his
notarial commission, if presently
commissioned, and DISQUALIFIED him from
being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years, with WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.

190
RECIO VS. ATTY. MADAMBA AND ATTY. APOSTOL, June
16, 2021
Complainant was adjudged constructively dismissed by
the NLRC in 2004 when her assignment was changed from
Quezon City to San Fernando, Pampanga without her
consent. Given the unjustified delay in the execution of
the NLRC Decision caused by the filing of numerous
dilatory motions by respondent, it should come as no
surprise that complainant eventually gave her consent  to
settle the labor dispute out of court  as evidenced by the
Compromise Agreement [With Waiver, Release and
Quitclaim] dated October 3, 2013, wherein she agreed to
receive the amount of P450,000.00 instead of the original
monetary award totalling to P767,542.82 per the Entry of
Judgment issued by the Court dated November 24, 2010.
The dilatory tactics that respondents employed had
actually worked to the detriment not just of complainant
but the legal profession and the judicial system as a
whole.
Penalty : For violation of the CPR and Lawyer’s Oath,
respondents were suspended  from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year.
191
DIAZ VS. ATTY. MANDANGAN, JUNE 28,
2021
Respondent filed Verified Complaint with
Prayer for Immediate Preventive Suspension
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) against former Mayor
Josemarie L. Diaz (Mr. Diaz) and the
members of the SangguniangPanlungsod of
the City of Ilagan, Isabela for their alleged
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act; RA 6713 or the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials; Grave Abuse of Authority; and
Grave Misconduct.

192
Notably, the dispute arose from the
construction, rehabilitation, and repair of
the barangay health center which allegedly
encroached upon respondent’s property
without her consent. From the foregoing
undisputed pieces of evidence presented by
complainant, the structures were erected in
the property of the Government of Ilagan,
Isabela, not in the purported property of
respondent, and it was an undertaking of
the DOH, not by the City of Ilagan, Isabela.

193
In filing the meritless Ombudsman
complaint against complainant,
respondent violated the following
pertinent provisions of the CPR.As a
member of the bar, respondent should
have employed only such means as are
consistent with laws, legal processes,
truth and honor. Owing candor, fairness
and good faith to the court, she should
have not prosecuted her patently
frivolous and meritless complaint, or
instituted a clearly groundless action
before the Ombudsman. Being a member
of the bar, respondent should have
known better not to misuse legal
processes to defeat the ends of justice.194
Given respondent’s violation and her
past record of already having been
suspended for one (1) year and
sternly warned by the Court for
being guilty of violating the CPR, she
exhibited her inclination to
disregard court rules and set aside
her responsibility in maintaining
orderly administration of justice.
She was SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years,
with  STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
 
195
SISON VS. ATTY. DUMLAO, April 29, 2021
A lawyer-client relationship is established
when lawyers consistently manifest to a
person consulting them that they would
provide legal representation or assistance,
regardless of the close ties between the
parties, or the lack of a written contract, or
the non-payment of legal fees. Lawyers
who later on decide not to represent their
client have the duty to inform their client.
Failure to do so will be cause for
administrative sanction.

196
When complainant asked respondent
for an update on his nullity of
marriage case, responded did not
inform him that she would no longer
be connected with the case due to
conflict of interest as she was
approached by complainant's mother-
in-law not to proceed with the case.
Respondent was REPRIMANDED with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.

197
MALIWAT, ET AL. vs. ATTYS. ABRAJANO AND BAYAUA, April
26,
In a case for nullity of marriage, complainants alleged that
respondents misused court processes by faking the
addresses of the respondent despite their knowledge that
respondent is a resident of Italy and not Sampaloc. Manila.
For signing pleadings with fraudulent allegations,
Atty.Bayaua, in his attempts to evade administrative
liability, contended that he only acceded to Atty. Abrajano's
request to use his office space out of trust and fraternal
love for an ailing brother in the legal profession. Atty.
Bayaua alleged that Atty.Abrajano, who died during the
pendency of the case, was the one who prepared and
signed the Petition, and that he merely notarized the
Verification and Certification attached thereto and the other
succeeding pleadings.The SC held that Atty.Bayaua's act of
signing the pleadings is essentially a certification coming
from him that he has read it, that he knew it to be
meritorious, and it was not for the purpose of delaying the
case. More importantly, it was his signature on these
pleadings which supplied the same with legal effect and
elevated their status from a mere scrap of paper to that of a
court document.
198
The SC DISMISSED the instant
administrative complaint insofar as
respondent Atty. Abrajano is
concerned in view of his supervening
death. On the other hand, Bayauawas
found GUILTY of violating Section 3,
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. He was REPRIMANDED
and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

199
ATTY. CONSTANTINO VS. ATTY.
ARANSAZO, Feb. 10, 2021
Complainant and respondent
were good friends. When
complainant was involved in a
case involving the sworn
statement he executed, he
approached respondent to
handle his case.

200
The SC found that respondent
violated the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and
client when he divulged the
information confided to him by
complainant to the counsel of the
opposing party.

201
Respondent insisted that there
was no lawyer-client relationship
since complainant did not confide
such facts to him in the course of
their lawyer-client relationship, but
rather, due to their personal
relationship as friends; hence,
there was no privileged
communication.

202
The SC held that a lawyer-client relationship
begins from the moment a client seeks the
lawyer's advice upon a legal concern. The
seeking may be for consultation on transactions
or other legal concerns, or for representation of
the client in an actual case in the courts or
other fora. 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, by virtue thereof, permits or acquiesces
with the consultation, then a lawyer-client
relationship is established.

203
Respondent’s defense that he merely
intended to rectify the error he
committed and to reveal the truth in
conformity with his duties under the
CPR that the deed signed by
complainant is void for lack of
consideration. The SC, however,
found respondent’s excuse as
irrelevant, if not inconsequential, in
determining his culpability. Whether
there is some truth to respondent’s
statements is a factual matter to be
determined before the proper forum,
and not in disbarment proceedings.
204
Penalty : Respondent was
hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, with a STERN
WARNING that a commission of
the same or similar offense in
the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe
penalty.

205
RE: ORDER DATED JANUARY 7,
2020 OF JUDGE IGNACIO I.
ALAJAR SUSPENDING ATTY. ELY
F. AZARRAGA'S NOTARIAL
COMMISSION FOR ONE (1)
YEAR. February 3, 2021.

Remedies for a suspended

lawyer for violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice

206
SANCHEZ VS. ATTY. PEREZ, February 3,
2021

Respondent did not attend pre-trial in the

annulment of contract and recovery of real
property with damages resulting in the
dismissal of the case. He was able to seek
reconsideration from the order of dismissal
but the court dismissed again the case for
his failure to appear on the subsequent pre-
trial dates. He did not inform complainant of
the status of the case. Complainant came
to know the dismissal of the complaint
when he inquired from the court.

207
A lawyer need not wait for his clients to ask
for information but must advise them
without delay about matters essential for
them to avail of legal remedies.
Respondent’s argument that he had
informed complainant of his desire to
withdraw as counsel does not excuse him
from his negligence. An attorney may only
retire from the case by filing a notice of
withdrawal with the written consent of his
client and permission of the court after due
notice and hearing. An attorney should see
to it that the name of the new lawyer is
recorded in the case.

208
Penalty : Respondent was
suspended for six months
with warning that a
repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with
more severely.

209
ADAN VS. ATTTY, TACORDA February 1, 2021
Complainant were the clients of respondent in a
criminal case for perjury. When complainants
posted bail, they gave an incorrect address
known to respondent. Despite knowledge by
respondent of the incorrect address, he filed a
Motion to Issue Show Cause Order because of his
belief that complainants may be absconding from
some debt and that they had been evading
payments for attorney's fees and other legitimate
expenses. He also texted complainants with
accusatory, inflammatory, and obscene language
(i.e., "MGA ESTAPADOR. MGA ULOL," "SIRA ULO
KAYO SI ROMY AT DIDANG," and "DI AKO PAO NA
LIBRE AND SERBISYO KO, MGA ULOL.").

210
Respondent failed to adhere to the
canon of fidelity to the cause of his
client and to be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. He
also created controversies with his
clients concerning his compensation.
His rude and pedestrian language
against his own clients tarnished not
only respondent's own integrity but
also the noble profession he
represents.

211
Since this is not respondent’s first
offense, and that no prejudice ultimately
resulted to the complainants which would
have normally mitigated or tempered the
penalty imposed, the SC resolved to
increase the penalty adopted by the IBP
to suspension of one (1) year from the
practice of law, and to pay a FINE of
Pl0,000.00 for his failure to attend the
mandatory hearing and file the necessary
pleadings before the IBP. Respondent was
also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.

212
• In Re : Atty. Jaime Lopez, July 12, 2021.
• Lawyer was disbarred in California, USA. for
fraud.
• Rodco Consultancy vs. Atty. Concepcion, Nov.
22, 2021, IBP dismissed case because there was
no longer lawyer-client relationship when
charges of dishonesty, conflict of interest,
failure to return money, etc. but SC disbarred
him.
213
THANK YOU

214