JAIME JOVEN and REYNALDO C. RASING vs. ATTYS. Ruling: No. Atty.

Sevilla’s violation of Rule IV of the Rules

PABLO R. CRUZ and FRANKIE O. MAGSALIN III on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground for
A.C. No. 7686 July 31, 2013 disbarment. Given the clear provision of the
disqualification rule, it behooved upon Atty. Revilla to act
Facts: On July 16, 2007, the National Labor Relations with prudence and refused notarizing the document.
Commission (NLRC) rendered a decision. Joven's counsel, Furthermore, if the notary public knows the affiants
Atty. Solon R. Garcia, received their copy of the decision personally, he need not require them to show their valid
on August 14, 2007. As to respondents, they received a identification cards.
copy of the decision on August 24, 2007 based on the
Registry Return Receipt 2 that was sent back to the NLRC. ROLANDO E. CAWALING, ET AL. vs. NAPOLEON M.
Joven and Rasing filed a disbarment case against Attys. MENESE
Cruz and Magsalin III for deceit, malpractice, gross A.C. No. 9698 November 13, 2013
misconduct and falsification of public documents as they
alleged that respondents made an alteration of the true Facts: Complainants were employees of Bacman
date of their actual receipt with the intention of extending Geothermal, Inc. (Bacman), who were dismissed from their
by ten days the period within which to file a motion for employment. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
reconsideration. against Bacman Geothermal, Inc., Danilo G. Catigtig,
Ernesto Espinosa and Oscar. The Labor Arbiter declared
Issue: WON respondents should be disbarred. them to be illegally dismissed. Bacman appealed. The
appeal was raffled to the Second Division of the NLRC
Ruling: No. The Court dismissed the disbarment case for where respondents were sitting as Commissioners. There
lack of merit. The burden of proof in disbarment and being a monetary award in the decision, Bacman posted a
suspension proceedings always supersede as bond issued by Intra Strata Assurance
rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court Corporation (Intra Strata). Intra Strata stated that their
exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant certification of accreditation and
establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant authority from the Supreme Court had expired but their
evidence that warrants the imposition of the harsh application for renewal is pending before the Supreme
penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal Court. Complainants assailed the regularity of the surety
presumption that he is bond alleging that Intra Strata no longer has the authority
innocent of the charges made against him until the to issue the surety bond. Complainants averred that the
contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an acts of respondents in allowing the filing of appeal bond of
officer of the Court to have performed his duties in Bacman despite the expired accreditation of Intra Strata
accordance with his oath. constitute gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the
law and procedure. They pray that respondents be
BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE vs. ATTY. QUIRINO P. disbarred or be imposed with the appropriate disciplinary
REVILLA, JR. sanctions. Respondents denied the charges and
A.C. No. 9514 April 10, 2013 accusations against them. Respondents explained that
contrary to the claims of the complainants, the appeal
Facts: Atty. Quirino Revilla, Jr. notarized a complain- bond is existing and valid.
affidavit signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas
Pedrosa and Elmer Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister Issue: W/N the respondents should be disbarred.
of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Sevilla’s wife. Bernard
Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla is Ruling: No. Disbarment is the most severe form of
disqualified to perform notarial acts per Section 3, Rule IV disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He also complains must always be exercised with great caution, only for the
that Atty. Revilla did not require the three affiants in the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct
complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards. affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as
Atty. Revilla did not deny but admitted Jandoquile’s an officer of the court and member of the bar. 12 This
material allegations. Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant
evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh
Issue: W/N the singe act of notarizing the complaint- penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free
affidavit of relatives within the court civil degree of from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court
affinity, and, at the same time, not requiring them to of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act
present valid identification cards is a ground for done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly
disbarment. demonstrated. 13 In disbarment proceedings, the burden
of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will
exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant have already passed that subject and the grade/grades
establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory shall be included in the computation of the general
evidence. 14 This complainants failed to do. average in subsequent bar examinations.”

PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN vs. PRIMA JESUSA B. ISSUE:

QUINSAYAS Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
G.R. No. 194578 February 13, 2013
RULING:
Facts: Atty. Fortun is the counsel for the Ampatuans, the Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal
principal accused in the Maguindanao Massacre. In defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per
November 2010, Atty. Quinsayas filed a disbarment its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946
complaint against petitioner for misleading the to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a
prosecution and trial court under the rules and muddled permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
the issues and diverted the attention away from the main struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to
subject matter of the case. Petitioner alleged that from take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are
November 22 to not stationary.
23 a number of media published information about the
disbarment case against him. Atty. Fortun filed an indirect As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
contempt against Atty. Quinsayas and the media group for unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared
active dissemination of the details of the disbarment in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down
complaint against him in violation of Rule 139-B of the was based under the following reasons:
Rules of Court on confidential nature of disbarment
proceedings. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission
who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Quinsayas violated the preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the
confidentiality rule in disbarment proceedings, warranting end of World War II;
a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of court. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of
the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
Ruling: YES. Atty. Quinsayas is bound by Section 18, The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court both as a complainant and prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice
as a lawyer in the disbarment case against Atty. Fortun. As of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. Quinsayas is repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules
familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum
proceedings. However, instead of preserving its norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the
confidentiality, she disseminated copies of the disbarment court on who can practice law; and
complaint against Atty. Fortun to members of the media The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
which act constitutes contempt of court class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court
IN RE CUNANAN could not muster enough votes to declare it void.
94 PHIL. 534 Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in
1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court
FACTS: resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner.
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission
to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 to the practice of law.
up to and including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks: CRISELDA F. JOSE vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
1946-1951………………70% DANILO OMEGA
1952 …………………….71% G.R. No. 128646
1953……………………..72% March 14, 2003
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74% Facts: The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City rendered a
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade decision declaring that the marriage of respondent Danilo
lower than 50%. Omega and petitioner Criselda F. Jose as null and void on
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of
obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to Criselda. During trial, her counsel on record, the Atty.
Margarito D. Yap, represented Criselda. However, notice of counsel of the petitioners have authority to file notices of
appeal was filed by Criselda without the assistance of Atty. appeal of the petitioners have authority to file notices of
Yap. For failure to pay the docket fee, however, the appeal appeal in cases being handled by them. However, such
was dismissed and the decision of the trial court became authority does not extend to withdrawal of said appeal,
final and executory. The notice to pay docket fee and copy execution of compromise agreement and filing of
of resolution and the entry of judgment were all sent to pleadings before the appellate courts without the review
Atty. Yap. Later, Criselda inquired from the appellate court and approval of the Solicitor General. On January 19, 1999,
the status of her appeal and claimed that she had not the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on the
received any notice from the appellate court. Upon ground that the filing of the said appeal is in violation of
knowing the notices and other incidents were sent to Atty. the Administrative Code (Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title
Yap, Criselda, through counsel, reinstated her appeal III, Book IV) which impliedly stated that the NAPOCOR
through a motion. The Court of Appeals denied the lawyers have no authority to appear before the Supreme
motion, as well as the motion for reconsideration. Court and the Court of Appeals. Hence, thus petition.

Issue: WON Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion Ruling: The Court disagreed with the CA ruling that the
deputization of the NPC lawyers excluded the authority to
Ruling: No. It is settled that clients are bound by the file appeals in the higher courts. Under Section 2 (a), Rule
mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel. 41 of the Revised Rules of Court which pertains to ordinary
Moreover, under Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of appeals, the notice of appeal is filed in the very same court
Court, an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized which rendered the assailed decision, which in this case is
to represent any cause in which he appears. Under Section the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite. Since the
22 of the same Rule, an attorney who appears de parse in notice was filed before the RTC, the NPC lawyers acted
a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue clearly within their authority. Indeed, their action insured
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate Regardless of which mode of appeal is used, the appeal
court. itself is presumed beneficial to the government; hence, it
should be allowed. After all, the OCG may withdraw it, if it
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. VINE believes that the appeal will not advance the government's
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION cause.
G.R. No. 137785
September 4, 2000 FLORENCIA G. DIAZ vs. REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 181502
Facts: On July 12, 1995, petitioner National Power February 2, 2010
Corporation instituted a complaint for expropriation of
several parcels of land located at San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Facts: The petitioner filed an application for registration of
Cavite owned by respondents Vine Development a vast tract of land in Nueva Ecija. She alleged that she
Corporation and Romonafe Corporation before the possessed the land as owner and worked, developed and
Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Imus, Cavite. After due harvested the agricultural products and benefits of the
trial, the lower court granted the expropriation of those same continuously publicly and adversely for more than 26
parcels of land at a rate of P3,500.00 per square meter. years. OSG opposed the application because the land in
Petitioner directly appealed to the Court of Appeals on the question was within the Fort Magsaysay Military
ground that the said decision was contrary to law, Reservation. Thus, it was inalienable as it formed part of
jurisprudence and evidence on record. During the the public domain. CFI ruled in favor of the petitioner.
pendency of the appeal, petitioner and Romonafe Corp. Upon appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the Republic.
entered into a Compromise Agreement. When the Court of Subsequently, CA encouraged the parties to reach an
Appeals required the Office of the Solicitor General (OCG) amicable settlement on the matter. The parties entered
to comment on the Compromise Agreement, the (OCG) into one. However, OSG backed out from the settlement
commented that the said Compromise Agreement should and informed the CA that the track of land subject of the
be disapproved and the appeal should be resolved on the amicable settlement was still within the military
merits. During the December 10, 1998 hearing, the reservation. CA ruled in favor of OSG. Petitioner then
Solicitor General personally appeared and argued that wrote letters addressed to Justice Quisumbing and Justice
subject Compromise Agreement suffered from two fatal Puno alleging there was a miscarriage of Justice and that
infirmities, namely: (1) it is grossly disadvantageous to the the petitioner was tempted to go to media regarding the
government and (2) the deputized lawyers if the petitioner situation.
have no legal authority to bind the Solicitor General to the
said Manifestation to the effect that the OCG deputized Issue: W/N Diaz is guilty of contempt of court.
 6. Atty H replied: Rayos allegedly agreed to a contingent
Ruling: Yes. Diaz has doggedly pursued her case in this basis fee on a 40%-60% (client-lawyer) sharing:
Court by filing three successive motions for 40% - attorney’s fees
reconsideration, including the letter-motion subject of this 20% - litigation expenses
resolution. This, despite our repeated warnings that "no
further pleadings shall be entertained in this case." Her 7. The Court referred the case to Commission on Bar
unreasonable persistence constitutes utter defiance of this Discipline of IBP for investigation.
Court's orders and an abuse of the rules of procedure. Investigating Commissioner recommended the DISMISSAL
This, alongside her thinly veiled threats to leak her case to of the case.
the media to gain public sympathy — although the tone of IBP adopted and approved the same.
petitioner's compliance with our show-cause resolution
was decidedly subdued compared to her earlier letters — MAIN ISSUE:
constitutes contempt of court. Whether or not the contingent fee agreement is binding
upon Rayos and Atty Hernandez.
[G.R. No. 169079. February 12, 2007.]

DECISION:
FRANCISCO RAYOS, petitioner, vs.
YES, but with RESERVATIONS.
ATTY. PONCIANO G. HERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS: CONTINGENT FEE – the contingent fee is the amount

agreed upon by the parties subject to the stipulation that
1. Rayos was a client of Atty Hernandez in Rayos vs
counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or
NAPOCOR.
litigation prospers.
The story of the case:
YES: Contracts of this nature are permitted because they
On Oct 26-27, 1978, typhoon Kading hit Bulacan and
redound to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer
concurrently, NAPOCOR imprudently opened three
especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause
floodgates of the spillway of Angat Dam which caused
of action but no means to pay for legal services, unless he
flooding of Angat River. Consequently, 10 relatives of
Rayos died and his family’s properties were destroyed. agrees to a contract of contingent fee. A much higher
compensation is allowed as contingent fee in
Rayos sued NAPOCOR. RTC dismissed the case for lacking
credible evidence. CA reversed the decision and awarded consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if
the suit fails.
damages in favor of Rayos, which was also affirmed by the
SC.
RESERVATIONS: Contingent fee contracts should always be
Final and executory on Aug 4, 1993. The awards were as subject to the supervision of a court as to its
reasonableness. When the courts find that the stipulated
follows:
amount is excessive or found to have been marred by
a. Actual damages - P520, 000
fraud, mistake, undue influence on the part of the
b. Moral damages – P500, 000
attorney, public policy demands that said contract be
c. Litigation Expenses – P10,000.
disregarded to protect the client from unreasonable
2. The check issued by NAPOCOR was turned over to Atty exaction.
Hernandez as he was the counsel of Rayos. Rayos
In the case at bar, Atty H collected 53% of the total
demanded the check from Atty H but Atty H refused
amount due to Rayos.
3. Rayos filed a motion with the RTC to direct Atty Rayos was unschooled and frustrated with the loss of his
Hernandez to deliver to him the check. Despite the Court loved ones and the destruction of his family’s properties.
Order, Atty H refused claiming that it was his means to Given these facts, Rayos would easily succumb to the
demands of Atty H regarding his attorney’s fees.
ensure payment of his attorney’s fees.
Taking note also of Atty H’s efforts in litigating Rayos’ case
for 15 years and the risk he took in representing Rayos on
4. Atty Hernandez deposited the amount of P502, 838. 79
to the bank account of Rayos. a contingent fee basis, a fee of 35% of the amount
awarded to Rayos would be a fair compensation for Atty
H’s legal services.
5. Rayos filed a disbarment case against Atty H for his
failure to return the remaining P557, 961. 21.
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser
penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish
the end desired. Thus, guided by previous rulings of the
Court, Atty Hernandez’s SUSPENSION FOR 6 MONTHS is The underground tunnels impose limitations on
justified in the case at bar. respondents’ use of the property for an indefinite period
and deprive them of its ordinary use. Hence, respondents
----------------------------------------------------- are clearly entitled to the payment of just compensation.
NB:
Factors which should guide a lawyer in determining his Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner only occupies the
fees: sub-terrain portion, it is liable to pay not merely an
Rule 20.1 of CPR: easement fee but rather the full compensation for land. It
The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or is settled that the taking of private property for public use,
required;
 to be compensable, need not be an actual physical taking
or appropriation. This is so because in this case, the nature
The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; 
 of the easement practically deprives the owners of its
The importance of the subject matter; 
 normal beneficial use. Compensable taking includes
destruction, restriction, diminution, or interruption of the
The skill demanded; 

rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use
The probability of losing other employment as a result of and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner,
acceptance of the proffered case; lessening or destroying its value.
The customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs; Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al., G.R.
The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits No. 183952, September 9, 2013.
resulting to the client from the service;
The contingency or certainty of compensation; The case initially concerned the execution of a final
The character of the employment, whether occasional or decision with the Court of Appeals in a labor litigation.
established; and Petitioner Malvar, however, entered into a compromise
The professional standing of the lawyer. agreement with the respondents pending appeal without
informing her counsel. Malvar’s counsel filed a Motion to
NPC v. HEIRS OF SANGKAY Intervene to Protect Attorney’s Rights.
656 SCRA 60 G.R. No. 165828 August 24, 2011
The Supreme Court, on considerations of equity and
TOPIC: Eminent Domain; Just Compensation fairness, disapproved of the tendencies of clients
compromising their cases behind the backs of their
FACTS: National Power Corporation (NPC) undertook the attorneys for the purpose of unreasonably reducing or
Agus River Hydroelectric Power Plant Project to generate completely setting to naught the stipulated contingent
electricity for Mindanao. It included the construction of fees. Thus, the Court granted the Motion for Intervention
several underground tunnels to be used in diverting the to Protect Attorney’s Rights as a measure of protecting the
water flow from the Agus River to the hydroelectric plants. Intervenor’s right to his stipulated professional fees. The
Court did so in the interest of protecting the rights of the
On 1997, Respondents sued NPC for recovery of damages practicing Bar rendering professional services on
of the property and a prayer for just compensation. They contingent fee basis.
alleged that the tunnel deprived them of the agricultural,
commercial, industrial and residential value of their land; Although the compromise agreement was still approved
and that their land had also become an unsafe place for by the Court, the payment of the counsel’s adequate and
habitation, forcing them and their workers to relocate to reasonable compensation could not be annulled by the
safer grounds. settlement of the litigation without the counsel’s
participation and conformity. He remains entitled to the
ISSUE: Whether the Heirs of Sangkay have the right to just compensation, and his rights are safeguarded by the Court
compensation because its members are officers of the Court who are as
entitled to judicial protection against injustice or
RULING: Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent imposition of fraud committed by the client as much as the
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. client is against their abuses as her counsel. In other
It has the objective to recover the value of property taken words, the duty of the Court is not only to ensure that the
in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no attorney acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also to
formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been see to it that the attorney is paid his just fees. Even if the
attempted by the taking agency. compensation of the attorney is dependent only on
winning the litigation, the subsequent withdrawal of the
case upon the client’s initiative would not deprive the
attorney of the legitimate compensation for professional that he did not receive a notice of hearing hence his
services rendered. absence. Finding his reason to be insufficient, Orcino
demanded the records of the case and advised Gaspar that
Elisa Venterez, Genero de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, she’ll be hiring another lawyer. Gaspar complied and
Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De Vera, thereafter he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The
Complainants, v. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme , Respondent | court did not grant his motion because the same was
A.C. No. 7421, 10 October 2007 without Orcino’s written consent. Perhaps changing her
mind, Orcino refused to give her consent. Gaspar,
Facts: however, did not attend the subsequent hearings. Orcino
Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a then filed an administrative complaint against Gaspar for
land title dispute. The court ruled against the abandoning the case.
complainants. They wanted to file a motion of
reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gaspar violated his duties to
Because of this, the complainants were constrained to his client.
contact another lawyer to prepare the motion for
reconsideration. HELD: Yes. The belligerence of Orcino towards Gaspar is
understandable and is attributed to her over zealousness
Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the to bring justice to the death of her husband. When she
complainants informed him that the complainants were uttered that she’s terminating Gaspar’s services, she did so
withdrawing the case from him because he (the son) in a burst of passion. She did not really mean to terminate
engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty. Cosme Gaspar at all as evidenced by her refusal to give consent to
further explained that he even turned over the records of Gaspar’s motion.
the case to the son, ceased to be counsel of the
complainants. At any rate, a lawyer cannot unilaterally terminate his legal
services to his client. Unlike the other way around where a
Issue: client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of the client relationship with or without just cause. Atty. Gaspar
Professional Responsibility (CPR). has no reason to presume that his motion shall be granted
by the court. He should have not left Orcino in the cold
Held: and should have continued appearing for her until there is
The Supreme Court find the respondent guilty of violating a withdrawal of record and a successor placed in his stead.
Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR for abandoning the Gaspar was admonished accordingly. He was also directed
complainant’s case without a good cause. An attorney may to return half of what was paid him.
only retire from the case either by a written consent of his
client or by permission of the court after due notice and LUISITO BALATBAT, A.C. No. 1666
hearing, in which event, the attorney should see to it that Complainant,- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. SR., CHICO-NAZARIO, and ATTY. EDGARDO ARIAS
Y SANCHEZ, Respondent. April 13, 2007
For failing to protect the interests of the complainants, the
respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. FACTS:
In the Complaint[1] dated September 8, 1976,
The Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the
practice of law for a period of three months. Luisito Balatbat alleged that he engaged the services of
respondent to undertake his defense in the said civil
Angelita Orcino vs Atty. Josue Gaspar
case.According to complainant, he did not attend the
FACTS scheduled hearings because respondent told him that
Orcino’s husband was murdered and she was zealous in there was no need to be
prosecuting the suspects. She hired Atty. Gaspar as her
counsel and they agreed to a P20,000.00 attorney’s fee present. But when he verified the status of the case from
which Orcino paid. Atty. Gaspar did his duty religiously the then City Court of Manila, he was surprised to learn
from interviewing witnesses to attending hearings and the
that a Decision[2] dated June 21, 1976 had already been
preliminary investigation. But on the day bail is to be
heard, Atty. Gaspar failed to appear. Bail was granted in rendered. Complainant alleged that the enforcement of
favor of the suspects and this enraged Orcino. She then
went to Gaspar’s residence where Gaspar reasoned out
the decision caused him and his family untold miseries,
G.R. Nos. 141810 & 141812 February 2, 2007
embarrassment and public ridicule.[3] VICENTE DELOS SANTOS, ET AL,
Petitioners, vs. FRED ELIZALDE, et al,
ISSUE Respondents.
Won respondent is liable
FACTS:
HELD On December 15, 1986, petitioners filed a Complaint for
Quieting of Title, Damages and Attorney’s Fees before the
YES. Based on respondents own admissions, he Kalibo, Aklan RTC, involving four (4) adjoining lots
did not properly withdraw as counsel for complainant. The for a total land area of 14,771 sqm, located in
Boracay Island,Malay, Aklan. The Trial Court declared
settled rule is that the attorney-client relation continues
intervenors Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-
until the client gives a notice of discharge, or manifests to Flores as lawful ownersof two-thirds (2/3) of the disputed
the court or tribunal where the case is pending that land, and Fred and Joan Elizalde as owners of the
remaining one-third (1/3) of theland. Thus, petitioners and
counsel is being discharged, with a copy served upon the respondent Fred Elizalde filed their separate Notices of
adverse party.[19] Thus, the only way to be relieved as Appeal dated June 6, 1996 and May16, 1996, respectively.
The cases were docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48475 for
counsel is to have either the written conformity of his
respondent Elizalde and CA-G.R. CV No.54136 for
client or an order from the court relieving him of the petitioners. Subsequently, the CA issued the June
duties of counsel, in accordance with Rule 138, Section 2, 1998 Notice to File Brief, requiring petitioners
and respondent Elizalde to file their briefs within forty-five (45) days
26 of the Rules of Court. from receipt of said notice.

G.R. No. 167620 April 4, 2007 On July 27, 1998, petitioners filed by registered
CAROLINA B. VILLENA, Petitioner, vs. mail a July 27, 1998 Motion for Extension of Time
ROMEO Z. RUPISAN and RODOLFO Z. to File Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants. In their motion,
RUPISAN, Respondents. petitioners admitted having received a copy of the Notice
FACTS to File Brief on June 15,1998; thus, they had until July
The late Nicomedes T. Rupisan was first married to 30, 1998 to file their brief, and prayed for an
Felicidad Zamora. Their union bore five children namely: extension of forty-five (45) days.
Consuelo, Erlinda, Alejandro, Rodolfo, and Romeo. Rodolfo
and Romeo are the respondents in this petition. Upon the ISSUE:
death of Felicidad in 1949,3 Nicomedes married Maria
Rosario de Castro (Maria Rosario) on 14 October 1964. The Whether or not CA erred in dismissing the appeal,
couple did not have any children. During the marriage of considering it withdrawn as prayed for by counsel,
Nicomedes and Maria Rosario, they acquired certain Atty.Victoriano and for not considering the fact
properties that said cpounsel was clearly at fault and/or
grossly negligent in theperformance of his duties to his
clients.
ISSUE
WON respondent is liable RULING:

petitioners claim that the Undertaking or Agreement

HELD allegedly entered into by them and respondents
In the case at bar, respondents were delayed in the delos Santos is invalid considering that their purported
payment of docket fees for six (6) days only. The reason signatures in it were forged. They argue that the motion to
advanced by them was because of poverty. Evidently, in withdraw is likewise invalid; therefore, there is no basis for
the cases where the Supreme Court disallowed the late the withdrawal of the appeal. In other words, petitioners
payment of docket fees, the tardiness was for a significant question the authenticity of said documents, raising a
period of time.49 Guided by the foregoing jurisprudential question of fact.
pronouncements, it will be extremely harsh for the Court
to take a lackadaisical attitude towards the cause of the
respondents. We are convinced of the fastidiousness of No meritorious cause.
the Court of Appeals’ decision.
With the loss of their right of appeal to the CA, we see no respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal
profession where one of the primary duties of its members
need to resolve the issue of ownership. Such issue should is to uphold its integrity and dignity.63chanrobleslaw
have been first resolved by the CA, but it was not able to
WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty.
do so because of the dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the Patrick A. Caronan" (respondent) is found GUILTY of falsely
claim of ownership is a non-issue before this Court. assuming the name, identity, and academic records of
complainant Patrick A. Caronan (complainant) to obtain a
law degree and take the Bar Examinations. Accordingly,
PATRICK A. CARONAN v. RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a.
without prejudice to the filing of appropriate civil and/or
“ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN”
criminal cases,
A.C. No. 11316, 12 July 2016, (Sereno, CJ)
Conrado N. Que v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.
FACTS:
A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014
On 2013, a complaint was filed by the real Patrick A.
Caronan against his brother Richard A. Caronan a.k.a.
Facts:
“Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” before the Integrated Bar of the
Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final
Philippines. In his complaint, he stated that he and his
judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent
older brother both completed secondary education at the
successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court
Makati High School and that he finished his college
of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a
education at the University of Makati. Thereafter, he
petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional
applied and got a job at a 7-11 convenience store in
Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the
Muntinlupa City, working his way up until he was
lower court’s decision against his client.
promoted as
its store manager.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated various canons
On the other hand, his brother enrolled at the Pamantasan
and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
ng Lungsod ng Maynila and later managed to enter the
(CPR).
Philippine Military Academy in Baguio City but was
discharged. in 1993. The respondent Richard then moved
Held:
to Nueva Vizcaya with his wife and three children.
Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple
Patrick said he learned from Richard that he had enrolled
actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution
at St. Mary’s University’s College of Law in Bayombong,
of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful
Nueva Vizcaya using Patrick’s name and college records
and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant
from the UM and that he passed the Bar exams in 2004.
that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and
reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the
ISSUE: WON respondent shall be liable
previous counsel of the respondent’s clients. The
respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond legitimate
HELD
means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending
Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack
the interests of his clients. The respondent violated his
of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he
duty as an attorney “never to mislead the judge or any
assumed the name, identity, and school records of his own
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or
brother and dragged the latter into controversies which
law.”
eventually caused him to fear for his safety and to resign
from PSC where he had been working for years. Good
Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the CPR,
moral character is essential in those who would be
and is found liable for professional misconduct for
lawyers.61 This is imperative in the nature of the office of a
violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and
lawyer, the trust relation which exists between him and his
10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 10; Rules
client, as well as between him and the
12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
court.62chanrobleslaw
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); and Sections 20
(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The
Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession
Supreme Court disbarred the respondent from the
by pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a
practice of law.
lawyer. He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his
alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing
Pollo v. Constantino-David
of several criminal cases against him. Certainly,
G.R. No. 181881, 18 October 2011
 Ruling
Facts The search conducted on his office computer and the
Respondent CSC Chair Constantino-David received an copying of his personal files was lawful and did not violate
anonymous letter complaint alleging of an anomaly taking his constitutional right.
place in the Regional Office of the CSC. The respondent
then formed a team and issued a memo directing the team In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana
“to back up all the files in the computers found in the of Cebu City
Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” A.C. No. 270, March 29, 1974

Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from FACTS

the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were turned On May 29, 1959, the Court, finding that respondent Atty.
over to Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes Carlos C. Rusiana, who was admitted to the Philippine Bar
were examined by the CSC’s Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). on January 21, 1955, committed acts of misconduct as a
It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes notary public and "has exhibited such a frame of mind and
containing files copied from the computer assigned to and observed such a norm of conduct as is unworthy of a
being used by the petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 member of the legal profession," ordered his disbarment.
documents, were draft pleadings or letters in connection
with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. Respondent has intermittently filed with this Court
On the basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued the petitions for re-admission, supported by resolutions from
Show-Cause Order, requiring the petitioner, who had gone members of the Bench and Bar, labor unions, newspaper
on extended leave, to submit his explanation or counter- editors and reporters, members of professional and civic
affidavit within five days from notice. organizations of the Province of Cebu, attesting to
respondent's good conduct and moral character since his
In his Comment, petitioner denied the accusations against disbarment, and petitioning for his reinstatement to the
him and accused the CSC Officials of “fishing expedition” legal profession.
when they unlawfully copied and printed personal files in
his computer. The sole object of the Court upon an application for
reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is
He was charged of violating R.A. No. 6713 (Code of to determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and and convinced the Court by positive evidence that the
Employees). He assailed the formal charge and filed an effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his
Omnibus Motion ((For Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or character has been successful, and, therefore, he is
to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is
having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond intrinsically an office of trust.
the authority of the CSC Chairman, such power pertaining
solely to the court. The earlier petitions filed by respondent were denied. On
June 13, 1972, he filed a verified petition for
The CSC denied the omnibus motion and treated the reinstatement, submitting proofs of his honesty and
motion as the petitioner’s answer to the charge. In view of integrity and other indications of his good moral character
the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the (clearances from the City Courts and Court of First Instance
motion of the prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have of Cebu, Police Department of Cebu City, testimonials on
waived his right to the formal investigation which then his character by fiscals, lawyers, Judges of City Courts and
proceeded ex parte. of the Court of First Instance, resolutions of the Cebu Lions
Club, Sto. Rosario Council No. 5508 of the Knights of
The petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a Columbus, Bar Association of Cebu, Cebu Lawyers League,
petition to the CA which was dismissed by the latter on the Inc.), and after the hearing on the petition for
ground that it found no grave abuse of discretion on the reinstatement on July 18, 1972, the Court issued a
part of the respondents. He filed a motion for resolution on July 20, 1972, to wit:
reconsideration which was further denied by the appellate
court. Hence, this petition. "x x x [A] cling on the respondent's prayer for
reinstatement as a member of the Philippine Bar, and
Issue considering (a) that respondent movant had been
WON the search conducted by the CSC on the computer of disbarred as of May 29, 1959; (b) that since then the said
the petitioner constituted an illegal search and was a respondent may be considered as having undergone
violation of his constitutional right to privacy adequate punishment; (c) that he has observed exemplary
conduct since then, according to credible certifications
attesting to his repentance for the offense committed by In 1960, the then incumbent administrator of the Hospicio,
him thirteen (13) years ago, and may be reasonably resigned in favor of Antonio Cui pursuant to a “convenio”
expected to scrupulously observe the Canons of Legal entered into between them that was embodied on a
Ethics in the future; (d) but that, in view of the numerous notarial document. Jesus Cui, however had no prior notice
changes in the law since 1959, respondent movant should of either the “convenio” or of his brother’s assumption of
offer some guarantee of his ability to render adequate the position.
service to his prospective clients; the Court resolved that
respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana be, as he is hereby Upon the death of Dr. Teodoro Cui, Jesus Cui wrote a letter
required, to enroll in, and pass, regular fourth year review to his brother Antonio, demanding that the office be
classes in a recognized law school, and that upon his filing turned over to him. When the demand was not complied,
with the Clerk of this Court of sworn certificates by the Jesus filed this case. Lower court ruled in favor of Jesus.
individual professors of the review classes attesting to his
having regularly attended and passed their subjects, under ISSUE
the same conditions as ordinary students said movant Who is best qualified as administrator for the Hospicio?
Carlos C. Rusiana be readmitted as a member of the
Philippine Bar, upon his taking anew the lawyer's oath and HELD
signing the Roll of Attorneys in the custody of the Clerk of Antonio should be the Hospicio’s administrator.
this Supreme Court." Jesus is the older of the two and under equal
circumstances would be preferred pursuant to sec.2 of the
ISSUE deed of donation. However, before the test of age may be,
WON Rusiana is allowed to be reinstated to the Bar applied the deed gives preference to the one, among the
legitimate descendants of the nephews named, who if not
HELD a lawyer (titulo de abogado), should be a doctor or a civil
Yes. Carlos C. Rusiana is hereby allowed to take anew the engineer or a pharmacist, in that order; or if failing all
lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys after paying to theses, should be the one who pays the highest taxes
this Court the requisite fees. among those otherwise qualified.

Respondent has already complied with the requirements Jesus Ma. Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of laws but is
contained in the Court's resolution, as evidenced by the not a member of the Bar, not having passed the
sworn certificates by the individual professors of the examinations. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is a
review classes attended by him attesting to his having member of the Bar and although disbarred in 1957, was
regularly attended and passed their subjects under the reinstated by resolution, about two weeks before he
same conditions as ordinary students, and the separate assumed the position of administrator of the Hospicio.
letters, both dated February 25, 1974, of the Registrar and
the Dean of the Gullas Law School, of the University of the The term “titulo de abogado” means not mere possession
Visayas, addressed to Atty. Luis Garcia, this Court's Deputy of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but
Clerk of Court and Acting Bar Confidant, confirming the membership in the Bar after due admission thereto,
truth of the professors' statements. qualifying one for the practice of law. A Bachelor’s degree
alone, conferred by a law school upon completion of
JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI and ROMULO CUI certain academic requirements, does not entitle its holder
G.R. No. L-1872, August 31, 1964 to exercise the legal profession. By itself, the degree
merely serves as evidence of compliance with the
FACTS requirements that an applicant to the examinations has
The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, is a charitable “successfully completed all the prescribed courses, in a law
institution established by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and school or university, officially approved by the Secretary of
Dona Benigna Cui for the care and support, free of charge, Education.
of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless
persons.” It acquired corporate existence by legislation The founders of the Hospicio provided for a lwayer, first of
(Act No. 3239). Sec. 2 of the Act gave the initial all, because in all of the works of an administrator, it is
management to the founders jointly and, in case of their presumed, a working knowledge of the law and a license
incapacity or death, to “such persons as they may to practice the profession would be a distinct asset.
nominate or designate, in the order prescribed to them.
(embodied in Sec. 2 of the spouses deed of donation)” Under this criterion, the plaintiff Jesus is not entitled as
Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are against defendant, to the office of administrator.
brothers, being the sons of Mariano Cui, one of the Reference is made to the fact that the defendant Antonio
nephews of the spouses Don Pedro and Dona Benigna Cui. was disbarred (for immorality and unprofessional
conduct). However, it is also a fact, that he was reinstated contracted it while his first one is subsisting. Further, since
before he assumed the office of administrator. His the second marriage is void, he is then liable for
reinstatement is recognition of his moral rehabilitation, concubinage for living with another woman while his first
upon proof no less than that required for his admission to marriage is subsisting. The Supreme Court cannot give
the Bar in the first place. Also, when defendant was credit to his defense that both second and third marriages
restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and are shot gun marriages. He is a lawyer and is unlikely to be
disabilities resulting from his previous disbarment were coerced. One incident of a “shotgun marriage” is
wiped out. believable, but two such in succession would tax one’s
credulity. Macarrubo’s actions show a blatant disregard to
Florence Teves Macarrubo vs. Atty. Edmundo Macarrubo the institution of marriage and family. His acts import
424 SCRA 42 moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic
social institution of marriage.
FACTS
In 1982, Edmundo Macarrubo married Helen Esparza. In As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of
1986, he began his career as a lawyer. However in 1991, good moral character but must also be perceived to be of
Macarrubo married Florence Teves while his marriage with good moral character and must lead a life in accordance
Esparza was subsisting. In June 2000, Teves filed a with the highest moral standards of the community. The
complaint for disbarment against Macarrubo. Teves moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
alleged that Macarrubo made her believe that his marriage the bar to continue as such, including that which makes a
with Esparza was void; that Macarubbo lived with her as mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage,
her husband but later on left her and then Macarrubo outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
subsequently married another woman named Josephine community. Macarrubo violated the following provisions
Constantino whom he subsequently abandoned. Teves of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
presented as evidence documents proving Macarubbo’s Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
marriages as well as photos of him and his wife as a family. dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Macarrubo was initially declared in default for failing to CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
appear multiple times but was subsequently given the and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
opportunity to defend himself. In his defense, Macarrubo activities of the Integrated Bar.
avers that he was only coerced to marry Teves in order to
save her face because at that time she was already Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
pregnant; that Teves sent some strangers to pick adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
Macarrubo up wherever he goes. he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
He presented a judicial declaration of the nullity of his
marriage with Teves; that the marriage was void for being Anent the issue of res judicata, it has been long ruled that
a sham. He also averred that the ruling in the said case disbarment cases are sui generis cases. A disbarment case
serves as res judicata on the disbarment case because is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an
Teves failed to appear in the annulment case. He also investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers.
avers that his third marriage, with Constantino, is currently Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not
being annulled due to similar circumstances. determinative of an administrative case against him, or if
The Investigating Commissioner, perhaps finding that an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not
Macarrubo was never remiss in supporting Teves and the affect its course. In this case, the annulment of
two kids he fathered with her and that his marriage with Macarrubo’s second marriage will not work to remove
her is void, recommended a penalty of three months such second marriage as a ground for disbarment.
suspension from the practice of law for grave misconduct.
Constancia I. Valencia v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw
ISSUE A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391, A.C. No. 1543, 30 June 2008
Whether or not a second marriage entered into by a
lawyer while his first one is subsisting shall be a ground for Facts
disciplinary action if such second marriage is subsequently This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the
declared void. respondent who was disbarred on 26 April 1991 for
falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as
HELD evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent
Yes. Macarubbo is disbarred. Even though his second filed several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the
marriage is declared void, it is still undeniable that he bar. His motions and appeals were accompanied by
endorsements of his good moral character by various
organizations such as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive
Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and
Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association
of Pangasinan; Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary Club
of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP.

Issue
Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to
the practice of law.

Held
Records show that the long period of respondent’s
disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his
misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to
demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once
again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. It
is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary
proceedings is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided
by their doctrine and considering the evidence submitted
by respondent satisfactorily showing his contribution and
his being again worthy of membership in the legal
profession, the Supreme Court find that it is now time to
lift respondent’s disbarment.