Leslie Ui v. Atty. Iris Bonifacio Facts: 1.

A disbarment complaint was filed by complainant (Leslie Ui) before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the ground of immorality, more particularly for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainants husband. 2. Complainants husband, Carlos Ui, was having a relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio, a graduate of the UP and admitted into the Bar in 1982. The two, Carlos and Iris, met sometime in 1983 and Iris had known him all along to be a bachelor, with the knowledge however that Carlos had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China from whom he had long been estranged. During one of their trips, Carlos formalized his intention to marry Iris and they got married in Hawaii in 1985. Their union resulted to two offspring (1986 and 1988). In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. 3. Meanwhile, complainant Leslie Ui is married to Carlos L. Ui last January 24, 1971 and have four children (Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Carl Cavin). 4. When complainant knew of the relationship between her husband and Atty. Bonifacio, she visited respondent at her office and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos in June 1988. During the said visit of complainant, respondent admitted that she had begotten a child from Carlos and that everything between them was over. However, she discovered that the relationship between Carlos and Iris continued despite what Bonifacio said during her (Leslie) first visit. Again, in March 1989, she met again with respondent and pleaded that she discontinues her relationship with her husband. 5. When respondent discovered Carlos true civil status on June 1988, she cut off all her ties with him. By way of counterclaim by respondent against the disbarment case filed by complainant, she sought moral damages in the amount of Php 10 million. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant charged her husband and respondent with the crime of concubinage. However, said charge was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. 7. In the proceedings before the IBP, respondent attached a certificate of marriage duly certified by the State Registrar as true copy of the

record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health which revealed that the date of marriage between Carlos and Iris was October 22, 1987. 8. The Commission on Bar Discipline rendered a decision favourable to respondent on the ground that the Commission failed to find any act on the respondents part that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. The Board of Governors of the IBP had likewise adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission. Ruling: 1. Possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. 2. In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent that when she met Carlos she knew and believed him to be single. She fell in love with him and they got married and had two children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos, she left him. The facts of the case lead the Court to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such compromising situations had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him. 3. A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. 4. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. 5. not disbarred, but reprimanded for attaching a photocopy of her marriage certificate with an altered date

Dantes v. Dantes Facts: 1. Emma Dantes sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. 2. Respondent was purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the other and had illegitimate children with them. From the time respondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children. Due to this, complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper. 3. In his answer to the affidavit-complaint, respondent alleged that he and complainant mutually agreed to separate 18 years before after complainant abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to San Fernando, Pampanga. When she returned 18 years later, she insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing. Thus, he was forced to live alone in a rented apartment. He likewise asserted that complainant filed this case to force him to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her. 4. From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established that they got married on January 19, 1979 and lived with respondents mother in Balintawak. At that time, respondent was th just a 4 year law student. To make ends meet, complainant engaged in buy and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondents mother. They have three children: Dandelo, Dante, Daisy. Ruling: 1. The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so wilful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

2. If the practice of law is to remain an honourable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. 3. It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the public, (b) to protect the public image of lawyers, (c) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves. 4. Respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition of appropriate sanctions. Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. 5. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer, as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed. However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty. Tolentino v. Mendoza Facts: 1. A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Norberto Mendoza, a former municipal trial court judge, for grossly immoral conduct and gross misconduct. According to complainant, respondent abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas Valderia in favour of his paramous Marilyn dela Fuente who is, in turn, married to one Tamos Mindoro. Mendoza had likewise fathered two children by his paramour and declared in their birth certificates that Mendoza and his paramous were married on May 12, 1986 thus made to appear that the children are legitimate. Meanwhile, in respondents certificate of candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995

elections, he declared that his wife is Valderia however in 1998, he declared to be separated. 2. The complainants are political opponents in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. According to respondent, the procured copies of the birth certificates of his daughters were done illegally thus making them inadmissible as evidence. 3. In February 27. 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution, Resolution No. XVI 2004 123 which suspended indefinitely the respondent from the practice of law until he would be able to submit satisfactory proof that he is no longer cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife and has abandoned such immoral course of conduct. Ruling: 1. Members of the Bar have been repeatedly reminded that possession of good moral character is a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct, for instance, which makes mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage. 2. In the instant case, respondent has disregarded and made a mockery of the fundamental institution of marriage. Respondent in fact even so stated that he is separated from his wife. This fact and statement without any further explanation from respondent only contributes to the blot in his moral character which good moral character we repeat is a continuing condition for a member to remain in good standing. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated this rule against engaging in immoral conduct. 3. Atty. Norberto Mendoza is found guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of conduct. Moreno v. Araneta Facts:

1. A disbarment complaint is filed against Atty. Ernesto Araneta for deceit and non-payment of debts. 2. There are two causes of action filed by complainant. The first involved Treasury Warrant No B-02997354 issued by the Land Registration Commission in favour of Lira, Inc. and indorsed by Araneta purportedly as president of the said corporation, to Moreno in consideration of the amount of Php 2, 177. The complaint alleged that almost a year later, the warrant was dishonoured. 3. The second cause involved Aranetas non-payment of debts in the amount of Php 11,000. The check, according to Moreno, belonged to the Philippine Leasing Corporation which she managed when her father passed away. Complainant alleged that borrowed Php 5,000 to show to his associates and another Php 6,000 for the same purpose. Araneta issued two Bank of America checks in favour of Moreno but said checks were dishonoured. 4. However, according to the respondent, it was Moreno who sought to borrow Php 2,500 from him. And, he denied borrowing any amount from Moreno. 5. In a decision by IBP Commissioner Concepcion Buencamino dated December 28, 1988, that due to the act of respondent in issuing the two checks which he gave to the complainant for her to show to her creditors that money was coming her way, when there was none and the respondent knew such fact was an act of connivance of the respondent with the complainant to make use of these useless commercial documents to deceive the public. He was subjected to suspension of three months. 6. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report of Buencamino but increased its recommended period of suspension from three months to six months. Ruling: 1. The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, as the effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.

2. The act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude. 3. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty of good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case, likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. 4. Atty. Ernesto Araneta is disbarred. Cojuangco v. Palma Facts: 1. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leo Palma on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer, and grossly immoral conduct. 2. He and Palma met sometime in the 1970s. complainant is a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal counsel. 3. There he met complainants 22-year old daughter, Maria Luisa, then a student of Assumption. He married Maria Luisa in Hong Kong dated June 22, 1982. Next day after the marriage, it was when respondent informed complainant and assured him that everything is legal. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and has three children. 4. Accordingly, the complainant filed with the CFI of Pasay City a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between respondent and Maria Luisa. This was granted by the court. 5. The Commission on Bar Discipline by the IBP recommended that he be suspended from practice of law for a period of 3 years. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors but reduced penalty to a year.

Ruling: 1. The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavourably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. 2. Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Immoral conduct is that conduct which is wilful, flagrant or shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion and of the good and respectable members of the community. Measured against this definition, respondents act is manifestly immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. Third, he misrepresented himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. 3. The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they shall not engage in lawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 4. Palma is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and disbarred from the practice of law. Barrios v. Martinez Facts: 1. Atty. Francisco Martinez was found guilty by the RTC of Tacloban City for violation of BP 22. The disbarment complaint was based on moral turpitude. 2. Martinez failed to respond to the resolution of the Court dated February 17, 1997. He was arrested in Tacloban City but was

subsequently released after compliance with the resolution by remitting the amount of Php 2,000 and submitting his comment. 3. Respondent claimed that he was unable to respond to the resolution because he was undergoing medical treatment, that complainant Michael Barrios passed away sometime in June 1997 and said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in respondents favour. Ruling: 1. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the SC for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. 2. In the present case, respondent has been guilty and convicted by final judgment for violation of BP 22 for issuing worthless check in the amount of Php 8,000. 3. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. 4. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission but also as a continuing requirement of the practice of law. Sadly, respondent falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession. 5. Martinez is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys. In Re: Luis Tagorda Facts: 1. Luis Tagorda is a practicing attorney and a provincial board of Isabela. During the last general elections, he made use of a card

written in Spanish and Ilocano which advertised his services as a lawyer. 2. In one instance, he advertised that he can execute a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office, can renew lost documents of animals, can make application and final requisites for the homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. He can also help anyone in collecting loans. He was practicing in Echague, Isabela. This was written in a card he distributed during the elections. Ruling: 1. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 2828, noted that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. 2. It becomes the courts duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the Bar. It results in needless litigation and in inciting to strife otherwise peacefully-inclined citizens. 3. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. 4. Luis Tagorda is suspended from practice for a period of 1 month from April 1, 1929. Ulep v. The Legal Clinic Facts: 1. The Legal Clinic posted an advertisement which states that for secret marriage, one pays Php 560.00 for a valid marriage. Likewise, information on divorce, absence, annulment and visa are accepted. The contact details and address of the company are likewise provided for. 2. According to petitioner, the advertisements are unethical, demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the Bar and that as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements.

3. According to respondent, the Legal Clinic does not engage in the practice of law, rather engages in legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. 4. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Philippine Bar Association, Philippine Lawyers Association, UP Women Lawyers Circle, Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines and Federacion International de Abogadas were required to submit their respective position papers to the controversy. 5. IBP wised that the high court perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice. PBA claimed that only natural persons may engage in the practice of law. PLA claimed that respondent is engaged in the practice of law contrary to what respondent posits. UPWLC claimed that the public should be protected from falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such service. WLAP claimed that the Legal Clinic engaged in advertising its services to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which are illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility. FIA said that advertisements are ethically objectionable because for one, no Philippine marriage can be secret and two, failed to state limitation that only paralegal services or legal services are available. Ruling: 1. To practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. 2. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. 3. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. Another exception to advertising is the publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.

4. The Legal Clinic is restrained and enjoined from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of similar advertisements being brought into attention. Khan v. Simbillo Facts: 1. There is a newspaper advertisement which reads Annulment of Marriage specialist 532-4333/521-2667 dates August 2 and 6, 2000 at the Manila Bulletin, and August 5, 2000. Likewise same advertisement appeared on PDI which prompted the case. 2. Staff member of the PIO of the SC (Ma. Theresa Espeleta) called the number and she spoke to Mrs. Simbillo as pretended to be an interested party. Mrs. Simbillo claimed that her husband Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is an expert in handling annulment cases, that a decision would be rendered with a period of 4 to 6 months provided separation of property and custody of children are not involved and a fee of Php 48, 000. Half of price is to be paid on filing of the case, the other when judgment has been rendered. 3. Atty. Ismael Khan, acting in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of PIO filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services. Ruling: 1. Use of ordinary simple professional card and law list are exceptions to the advertising prohibition. 2. Suspended for 1 year upon receipt of resolution. Sternly warned that a repetition of same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. BR Sebastian Enterprises v. CA Facts: 1. Eulogio Reyes filed an action for damages with CFI of Rizal against director of Public Works and BR Sebastian. Trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner liable for damages but absolving the other defendants.

2. Petitioner through its counsel, the law firm of Baizas, Alberto and Associates appealed the decision. Reyes, during the pendency of the appeal died but substituted by his heirs. Petitioner through the Baizas Law Office filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the appeal due to the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas, senior partner of the Baizas, Alberto and Associates. 3. CA denied motion for reconsideration. Ruling:

1. Respondent through gross negligence and incompetence failed to perform what is required of him. He fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the bar. 2. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. 3. Decision by IBP was affirmed. Vitriolo v. Dasig Facts:

1. Petitioners counsel was the law firm and not merely Atty. Crispin Baizas. Hence, the death of the latter does not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship between the firm and petitioner. 2. Negligence of counsel binds the client. 3. Petition is dismissed. Consolidated Farms v. Alpon Facts: 1. Complainant hired service of respondents in its case before the Social Security Commission. Complainant alleged that respondent as counsel in said case did not submit the position paper being required by the Commission and likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case despite due notice. 2. Due to this, complainant was held liable in the case with the SSC and ordered payment of Php 27, 117.09 as other partys claim for retirement benefits. 3. According to Alpon, he is the presiding judge of the municipal trial court of La Castellana, Negros Occidental. He is willing to reimburse complainant the amount judgment decreed. 4. Upon verification with the office of the court administrator, it was confirmed that respondent is not a judge. 5. IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of Alpon for 3 months. 6. Respondent is connected with Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates Law Office. Ruling:

1. Dasig is an official of the CHED. She is designated as officer-incharge of the Legal Affairs Service. She was charged for gross misconduct in violation of the Attorneys oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment and reputation of the CHED. 2. She demanded from Betty Mangohon a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches, QC the amount of Php 20,000 and later reduced to php 5000 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name. she had likewise demanded from Rosalie Dela Torre, a student, the amount of Php 18000 to Php 20000 for facilitation of her application for correction of name. she had likewise demanded from Rocella Eje, a student amount of Php 5000 for same purpose as above. Same with Jacqueline Ng, a student, 20,000 (initial 5000). 3. IBP governors recommended suspension for three years. Ruling: 1. In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests before her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given the respondents failure, despite the opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. We find that respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her office.

2. Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 3. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public. 4. Respondent is disbarred.

Artezuela v. Maderazo Facts: 1. One Allan Echavia drove a car in the early morning of December 24, 1992. His car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Lolita Artezuela. 2. The destruction of the complainants carinderia caused the cessation of the operation of her small business. She incurred debts from her relatives and stopped sending her two children to college. 3. Artezuela engaged the services of Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia and others. The case was dismissed due to the instance of the complainant and her husband. 4. Due to the dismissal, complainant filed a complaint for damages against respondent. It was dismissed. Thus, she filed a disbarment case against respondent on grounds of gross negligence of his duties as a lawyer and failure to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm 5. In his answer, respondent claimed that complainant was uncooperative and refused to confer with him. Held: 1. The court upheld the IBPs decision to suspend Maderazo for six months. 2. In the case at bar, the records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the hearings, prompting the Investigating Commissioner to receive complainants evidence ex parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have submitted their respective memorandum. 3. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse partys conflicting interests of record although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. To require that he be counsel-ofrecord of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.

4. An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. Indeed, good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring lawyer does not make this rule inoperative. The lawyer is an officer of the court and his actions are governed by the uncompromising rules of professional ethics. 5. The relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of public policy, on good taste. The question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behoves attorneys, like Ceasars wife, not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only this can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 6. Practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers public responsibilities. The suspension of the respondents privilege to practice law may result to financial woes. But as guardian of the legal profession, we are constrained to balance this concern with the injury he caused to the very same profession he vowed to uphold with honesty and fairness. Pimentel v. Llorente Facts: 1. Atty. Llorente is the election officer of the COMELEC and was designated chairman of Pasig City Board of Canvassers. Meanwhile, Ligaya Salayon, who is the city prosecutor of Pasig City, served as the Boards ex oficio vice chairman. 2. Complainant is a senator who was also a candidate for the Senate in 1995. He alleged that respondents tampered with the votes received by him. 3. Respondents claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight and/or fatigue.

Held: 1. Respondents are guilty of misconduct. 2. The IBP recommends the dismissal of petitioners complaint on the basis of: (a) respondents had no involvement in the tabulation of the election returns because when the Statement of Votes were given to them, such had already been accomplished and only needed their respective signatures, (b) canvassing was done in the presence of watchers, representatives of the political parties, the media, and the general public so that the respondents would not have risked the commission of any irregularity, and (c) acts dealt with in RA 6646 Section 27(b) which are mala in se and petitioner failed to establish criminal intent on the part of respondents. 3. A lawyer who holds a govt position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a govt official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is such of character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be discipline as a member of the bar for such misconduct. 4. As lawyers in the govt service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust. 5. There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor and it is important that the common caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly, should not become a common reality. Lim v. Barcelona Facts: 1. Atty. Edilberto Barcelona was a lawyer formerly employed with the NLRC as chief of the Public Assistance Center. He informed complainant Lim through phone that his employees filed a labor complaint against him and it was necessary that he sees him and talk. Respondent visited him in his office and told him to settle the case or else his business, Top Gun Billiards. For settlement, the amount was Php 20,000.

2. Lim requested the NBI to investigate Barcelona. NBI performed an entrapment operation where Barcelona was arrested. Held: 1. The grounds for disbarment or suspension of an attorney are: (a) deceit, (b) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, (c) grossly immoral conduct, (d) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, (e) violation of lawyers oath, (f) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, and (g) wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. 2. If a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as a govt official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground. More significantly, lawyers in govt service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. 3. Rule 1.02 provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Extortion by a govt lawyer, an outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. With the aforesaid rule a high standard of integrity is demanded of a govt lawyer as compared to a private practitioner because the delinquency of a govt lawyer erodes peoples trust and confidence in the govt . 4. Practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. 5. The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers, but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and

the public from the misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the legal profession persons utter disregard of the lawyers oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. 6. Barcelona was disbarred. Tiongco v. Aguilar Facts: 1. Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He characterized the decision of respondent Judge as having been crafted in order to fool the winning party; as a hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one with perfidious character. 2. Tiongco described respondent as a liar, perjurer or blasphemer Ruling: 1. The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely entwined with his vow in the lawyers oath to conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts, his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, and his duty under the first canon to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. 2. The use of unnecessary /offensive and abusive/abrasive and offensive language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members of the Court and to degrade the administration of justice by the Court. 3. Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety in making the false and malicious insinuation against this Court. Such could only come from anger, if not hate, after he was not given what he wanted. Anger or hate could only come from one who seems to be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with law and justice whatever he believes to be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his views. 4. Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000 plus warning.

Maglasang v. People Facts: 1. The legal fees ascribed by Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, amounting to Php 316.50 were not paid thus the case Maglasang v. People was dismissed. 2. Atty. Marceliano Castellano, counsel for petitioner, moved for reconsideration. It was denied with finality. 3. Due to it, Castellano, acting as counsel for Maglasang, accused all nd the 5 justices of the Courts 2 division of biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution. When cited for contempt, he reasoned that said constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and strict practices of the justices concerned. Ruling: 1. Atty. Castellano sought to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to the Court, in the hope of salvaging his reputation before his client. Said action is grossly improper. As an officer of the Court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to keep the confidence of his client. 2. While a lawyer must advocate his clients cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation and innuendo. 3. Castellano was found guilty of contempt of court and improper conduct. He was ordered to pay Php 1,000 within 15 days or suffer 10 days imprisonment. He is likewise suspended for 6 months. Bautista v. Gonzales Facts: 1. Ramon Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath by Angel Bautista. 2. In the case Gonzales handled, he agreed with his clients (Fortunado) to pay all expenses including court fees for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of property in litigation. He acted as counsel for the other party (Fortunado) and without said case being terminated, acted as counsel for the Lopez. He had transferred to himself of the properties of the Fortunados while the case was still pending.

3. He induced complainant, his former client, to enter into a contract with him for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in the case. Gonzales knew that the property was already sold at public auction. He submitted falsified documents and harassed complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis. Ruling: 1. Respondent committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by this court of its disciplinary powers. 2. A lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. Although a lawyer may in good faith advance the expenses of litigation, same should be subject to reimbursement. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially where the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his expenses in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. 3. Suspended for 6 months. Garcia v. Francisco Facts: 1. Atty. Crisanto Francisco commenced various suits against Garcia to thwart her right to regain her property. These suits included one for specific performance and reconveyance with damages, among others. It was dismissed. Ruling: 1. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and administration of justice. He was aware of this when he wilfully resorted to the gambits, continuously seeking relief that was constantly denied. He added to the already clogged dockets of the court and wasted their valuable time. 2. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his

oath not to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched the name of an honourable profession and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the court. 3. Suspended for one year. People v. Rio Facts: 1. Rio was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for having carnal knowledge with Wilma Phua. He interposed his appeal and as a consequence, it was forwarded to the CA which in turn forwarded the records of the case to the SC. 2. Court denied motion. Instead, it appointed a counsel de oficio for the accused Rio for, as correctly observed by the Solicitor General, all of Rios letter pertain that he is unable to retain services of counsel de parte on account of his poverty. Ruling: 1. Accused was unaware that Court can appoint a counsel de oficio to prosecute his appeal pursuant to Section13, Rule 122 of Rules of Court and Article III, Sec. 11 of the Constitution. 2. The constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial branch. 3. In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accused by given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little meaning if it does not include right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educate man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. 4. Right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon conviction of accused by a trial court. It continues even during appeal such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes anintent to appeal. Even in a case, where the accused signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. If the reason is poverty, court must assign a counsel de oficio. Tiania v. Ocampo

Facts: 1. Amado Ocampo, in one case involving Ms. Blaylock, he appeared for Tiania and also for Blaylock. However, he assured Tiania that there was no need to hire a new lawyer since he still remains as her lawyer. Ocampo made Tiana sign a compromise agreement which she signed without reading. Two years later, she was order to vacate. Ocampo advised Tiania to pay him certain amount for the sheriff. 2. The Angel spouses sold their house in favour of Blaylock for the amount of Php 70,000. Ocampo acted as counsel and prepared Deed of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver of Rights over a lot. Same with the above, he assured Angel spouses he would take care of everything but still received a notice to vacate. Ruling: 1. Prohibit the representation of conflicting interests not only because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, but also because of the principles of public policy and good taste. An attorney has the duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him with undivided loyalty. 2. The test of conflict of interest in disciplinary cases against a lawyer is whether or not the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance thereof. 3. Suspended for 1 year. Leda v. Tabang Facts: 1. Respondent, Atty. Trebonian Tabang, and complainant, Evangeline Leda, contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. It was solemnized by Judge Jose Tavarro. 2. The parties agreed to keep the marriage until after respondent had finished his law studies and had taken the bar examinations. 3. Respondent in his application declared that he was single. He passed the exam. But complainant blocked him from taking his oath claiming that he acted fraudulently in filling out his application.

Moreover, she alleged that after respondents law studies, he became aloof and abandoned her. Ruling: 1. His declaration that he was single in his application was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith. It is a violation of Rule 7.01, Canon 7.0. 2. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorneys character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the court retain power to discipline him.