WEEK 6 Atty.

Mejica is not guilty of forum shopping, requisites

Lim vs. Atty. Mejica SC: 6 mos suspension of forum shopping are: identity of parties, identity of
IBP: 5 yrs suspension rights asserted and relief prayed for are founded on the
Vasco-Tamaray vs. Atty. SC: disbarred same fcats, identity with respect to the two proceeding
Daquis IBP: dismissed the particulars in the two cases, such that the judgment
complaint may be rendered in the pending case would amount to
Abella vs. Atty. Barrios SC: Fine of 40K res judicata.
(Labor Arbiter) IBP: disbarment
In this case, 2nd requisite is not present, there is no
identity of relief in the complaint filed before OPP and
criminal case before MCTC, considering that in the first
one Atty. Mejica only seeks for finding of probable
cause against Lim, while in the second case Atty. Mejica
is seeking for conviction of Lim. The investigative power
Lim vs. Atty. Mejica of OPP is distinct and different from the power of court
to hold Lim for trial for the offense charged.
Facts:
However, SC found Atty. Mejica guilty of violation
Disbarment case is filed by Lim, Vice Mayor of Oras, Canon 10 of CPR, that lawyer shall exercise candor and
Eastern Samar, against Atty. Mejica for violation of CPR, courtesy to the court, when he failed to inform the
for deliberately committed forum shopping. MCTC about his pending MR before the OPP involving
the same cause of action, and when he failed to
Lim alleged that Atty. Mejica filed a criminal action for
withdraw his MR before the OPP despite of his
GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION against him before Office of
subsequent filing of complaint in MCTC.
Assistance Provincial Prosecutor when he uttered an
alleged slanderous words at the session hall of The action of Atty. Mejica, he made mockery of the
Sangguniang Bayan [That Agus Baldado filed a case judicial process and further eroded the public
against Atty. Mejica and that he is being suspended for confidence in lawyers when he ignored the proceeding
6 months, relay this information.] he initiated in OPP.
Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack SC meted only 6 months suspension considering that
of probable cause, and that while his MR is pending there was no showing of Atty. Mejia’s bad faith or
before the Office of Prosecutor, Atty. Mejica filed the malice on his action, it is merely a result of his wrong
same complaint before MCTC. notion that the jurisdiction of oral defamation is with
OPP.
Atty. Mejica denied that he committed forum shopping,
that his filing of complaint before the MCTC while his
MR is pending before OPP was made in good faith. That
he did not know that oral defamation need not subject NOTE:
CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
to preliminary investigation and may be filed directly
faith to the Court.
with MCTC, he only found out about this when his PAO
lawyer friend told him so.

IBP – found Atty. Mejica liable for violating Rule 12.02 of

Canon 12, and recommended his suspension for 5
years.

Issue: WON Atty. Mejica should be suspended.

Ruling: YES, SC suspends Atty. Mejica from practice of

law for 6 months with warning, for violation of Canon
10 of CPR.
 the doing of any in court. Rule 1.01 states that lawyers
shall not engage in unlawful or dishonest conduct and
Vasco-Tamaray vs. Atty. Daquis
that lawyer shall uphold the Constitution and obey the
Facts: law.

Vasco-Tamaray filed an disbarment case against Atty. Atty. Daquis only denied Vasco-Tamaray’s allegation
Daquis for pretending to be her counsel and forging her without showing any proof top support her denial, in
signature in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of fact, Atty. Daquis have no explanation on how she was
Marriage. referred to Vasco-Tamaray, it appears that she was
indeed lawyer of Leomarte (they have known each
Vasco-Tamaray alleged that Atty. Daquis on her behalf, other through her husband who is also working in
filed Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Japan, same with Leomarte). The Court also states that
without her consent and with her forged signature and it seems that Leomarte was really intended to file the
that Atty. Daquis signed the petition as counsel for petition but because of the possibility that his bigamous
petitioner, referring to her, that she found out about marriage will be reveal, and may subject him to criminal
the said petition when she obtained a copy from RTC, liability, Atty. Daquis made it appear that Vasco-
Atty. Daquiz never gave her any copy thereof. Vasco- Tamaray was the petitioner.
Tamaray also alleged that Atty. Daquiz is counsel of her
husband Leomarte, she presented affidavit of Maritess Second, Atty. Daquis violated Canon 7, which provides
(her accompany when Leomarte introduces Atty. Daquis that a lawyer shall uphold the integrity and dignity of
to them as his counsel) to support her claim, that Atty. legal profession and Canon 10, which states that lawyer
Daquis is counsel of her husband. shall owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court,
that lawyer shall do no falsehood, when she allowed the
Vasco-Tamaray further alleged that the purported use of forged signature on the petition she prepared
community tax certificate appeared on the jurat of the and notarized.
petition was not hers, considering that she never
resided in Muntinlupa, instead she is resident of The Court compared the signature of Vasco-Tamaray in
Novaliches, QC, she presented certification from her ID and complaint-affidavit against her alleged
Barangay Putatan in Muntinlupa stating she was never signature in the petition, and the Court found out that it
resident of the said barangay, and she even presented seems the signature in petition was forged, due to the
certification from Barangay Talipapa Novaliches QC, to difference in the stroke of the letter C and O.
prove that she indeed reside there.
Third, Atty. Daquis also violated Canon 17, which
Atty. Daquis denied and argued that Vasco-Tamaray was provides that lawyers shall owes fidelity to the cause of
her client and not Leomarte, that the community tax his client, she failed to protect the interest of her client
certificate in the jurist was provided by Vasco-Tamaray, when she represented Vasco-Tamaray, who is the
NOTESthis was seconded by her staff. Purawan and opposing party of her client, Leomarte. However, she is
Lorena, through their respective affidavits.
not guilty for presenting conflict of interest as stated in
IBP – dismissed the complaint for failure of Vasco- Canon 5, because there was nothing on the record that
Tamaray to prove her allegations.

Issue: WON Atty. Daquis should be held administratively

liable for her conduct.

Ruling: YES, SC found Atty. Daquis guilty of violating Rule

1.01, Canon 1, Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Rule 10.01, Canon 10
and Canon 17, but her violation of Canon 15.303 of
Canon 15 is dismissed, SC disbarred Atty. Daquis.

First, Atty. Daquis violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 when she

pretends as counsel of Vasco-Tamaray, she failed to
uphold her duty of doing no falsehood nor consent to
NOTES: proceeded to the office of Barrios to follow up about
CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF the matter. While computing about the monetary
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or awards, Barrios told Abella that the matter will be easily
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
fixed if he will pay him part of his award (30,000), by
legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar. force of circumstance he acceded to the condition of
RULE 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in Barrios, and that he was even compel to give Barrios
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. 1,500, which he also gave.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
RULE 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any Barrios issued writ of execution and ordered sheriff to
artifice. collect 1.4M from PT&T and he denied motion to quash
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his client. of PT&T but later on he reversed such denial on the
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts
basis of PT&T’s supplemental motion to quash. As a
Test to determine conflict of interest: result, he recalled his earlier order and issued a new
- "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to writ of execution, it reduces Abella’s monetary award,
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the
other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will from 1.4M to 114K.
be opposed by him when he argues for the other client
show that Vasco-Tamaray engaged the service of Atty. Barrios denied all the allegations and that he merely
Daquis. implementing the CA’s decision which did not provide
for the payment of back wages and that he never
demanded single centavo from Abella.

IBP – disbarred Barrios for violation of CPR, Anti-Graft

and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees.

Issue: WON Barrios should be administratively

sanctioned.

Ruling: YES, SC imposed a fine amounting to 40k to

Barrios, for violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1
and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of CPR. Disbarment was not
Abella vs. Atty. Barrios (Labor Arbiter) imposed because the Court take notice that Barrios was
already disbarred in Rafols vs. Barrios case.
Facts:
Atty. Barrios violated Rules 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1
Abella filed a disbarment case against Barrios, Labor
which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the
Arbiter, for violation of CPR.
Constitution and obey the laws, that he shall never
Abella alleged that he filed an illegal dismissal case engage to any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
against PT&T before the Cebu Regional Arbitration conduct and that he never delay any man’s cause. He
Branch of NLRC, that LA Carreon ruled in his favor and also violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6, which provides that
ordered PT&T to pay him separation pay and back a lawyer in government service shall not use his public
wages. On appeal, NLRC, set aside LA’s decision and position to promote or advance his interest.
instead ordered PT&T to reinstate him and pay him back
In this case, Atty. Barrios not only delay Abella’s action
wages as well as 13th month pay and service incentive
but he also extorted money from him, this was
leave, this was affirmed by the CA, then the decision of
manifested when after the visit of Abella to Barrios, his
CA became final and executory on 2004.
case was suddenly acted upon, this cast a legitimate
That he filed Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution suspicion that indeed Barrios extorted money from
before RAB, this was assigned to Labor Arbiter Barrios Abella.
that he needs to file another motion for issuance
Atty. Barrios even tried to distort the decision of CA,
because Atty. Barrios did not act on it, but 8 months
that the award of separation pay denied Abella his
have passed still no action with his motion, hence, he
entitlement to any back wages and other benefits, this
is a manifestation that Atty. Barrios tried to have a
favorable outcome in in favor of PT&T, considering that
under Labor Law back wages and separation pay in lieu
of reinstatement are distinct from one another and this
are awarded conjunctively to an employee who has
been illegally dismissed. Abella was illegally dismissed
this was unanimously decided by LA Carreon, NLRC and
CA, hence, he is entitled to back wages.

Atty. Barrios violations clearly constitute gross immoral

conduct, because his act is so corrupt as to constitute as

criminal act and eroded the integrity of legal profession

and gross misconduct, because his conduct transgress
some established rule of action and constitute
dereliction of duty, and it implies wrong intent not
merely an error of judgment, that warrant his
disbarment.

NOTES:
Immoral conduct – acts that are willful, flagrant or shameless, and that show
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of
the community.
Gross immoral conduct – it is so corrupt as to constitute a crime, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting instances as to shock the community’s
sense of decency.
Gross misconduct – improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not a mere error of
judgment. Madria vs. Atty. Rivera
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or Facts:
deceitful conduct
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage Madria filed disbarment case against Atty. Rivera for
any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT causing a simulated court decision.
SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position Madria alleged that she consulted Atty. Rivera about
to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties. the process of annulling her marriage with her husband,
Juan. That after she told Atty. Rivera about the facts of
her marriage, Atty. Rivera assured her that she has
strong case and that he can guarantee that he could
obtain decree of annulment, and she was told that the
cost of legal service would be 25k.

Then she was asked by Atty. Rivera to return on specific

date, as he will prepare the petition, then when he
return, Atty. Rivera showed her the petition and asked
her to sign it, which he acceded. Later on, Atty. Rivera
informed her that the petition was granted and her
daughter, Vanessa went to Atty. Rivera’s office to
receive the copy of decision, she was also instructed
that she need 5 months to lapse to claim her status as
single.

Thereafter, Madria used the decision and certificate of

finality to apply for the renewal of her passport.
However, she became the subject of NBI investigation, Sec. 27, Rule 138 of ROC provides the grounds for
when her former partner, Andrew, filed a complaint disbarment and gross misconduct and violation of
charging her of fabrication of- decision for the lawyer’s oath are some of the grounds, which warrants
annulment of marriage. Clerk of Court of RTC, state that the disbarment of Atty. Rivera. In addition, the Court
the petition for annulment of marriage of Madria was note that he was already sanctioned in Cruz-Villanueva
dismissed and that the signature of Judge Aquino in the vs. Rivera case, when he notarized a document without
purported decision is a blatant forgery. With that Madri a notarial commission.
faced criminal charges for violation of Phil. Passport Act
NOTES:
in RT, she contend that she relied in good faith on the Sec 27, Rule138 of ROC – grounds for disbarment:
representation of Atty. Rivera. (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4)
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
Atty. Rivera on the other hand, denied all the turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) wilful
allegations, but he admitted that he caused the disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8)
corruptly or wilfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case
simulated decision, but this was only because Madria without authority so to do.
insisted. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
IBP - found Atty Rivera guilty of violating lawyer’s oath AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
and recommend his disbarment. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
Issue: WON Atty. Rivera should be disbarred.
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
Ruling: YES, SC disbarred Atty. Rivera for grave
LOY AL TY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance
Atty. Rivera violated lawyer’s oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 with the laws and the principles of fairness.
of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15 and Canon 18.
Canon 1 provides that lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, not engage to unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct and he shall not aimed
at the defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the
legal system.

In this case, Atty. Rivera’s deliberate falsification of

court decision and certificate of finality of decision
reflected moral turpitude and he made mockery of the
administration of justice in this country, he lessened the
confidence of public to the legal system and legal
profession, hence he is not worthy to be part of the Bar.

In addition, he also violate Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of

Canon 18 which required lawyer to be truthful to their
client. Atty. Rivera chose to ignore his fiduciary
responsibility for the sake of money, with that he also
violated the lawyer’s oath do not to delay any man’s
cause and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to
the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity to the court as to his client. Atty. Rivera turn his
back to moral standard that legal profession is
requiring, he exhibited his baseness, lack of moral
character, dishonesty, lack of probity and unworthiness
to continue as officer of court.
 there is no reason why they may not do so now with
proper request.

With this the Court investigated and checked the

records of 1971 Bar Exam, and they found out that the
grades of galang in 5 subjects such as Political Law and
Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law,
Criminal Law and Remedial Law with office code No.
954 underwent some changes, and that these were duly
initialed and authenticated by respondents Bar
Examiners, with that changes the average grade of
Galang from 66.25% to 74.15%, which made him pass
the bar. [Court Reso. Making 74% as passing mark]

That this changes was due to the machinations of Atty.

Lanuevo, Bar Confidant. The 5 bar examiners,
unanimously stated that it was Atty. Lanuevo who
requested to them, separately and individually, to
reconsider the grade of certain and unknown bar
examinee without authority from SC, because he passed
all the subjects except the subject in which they were
the bar examiner. They also alleged that Atty. Lanuevo
make them believe that the reconsideration of the
grades of the bar examinees within the borderline of
passing is within the discretion of the bar examiners
themselves.

Atty. Lanuevo denied that he made representation to

the examiners about Galang’s failed only to their
respective subjects, he further contends that he acted
In Re: Lanuevo in good faith and in honest belief that re-evaluation is
proper for the sake of justice to the examiners and not
In Re: Galang to betray the trust reposed in him as Bar Confidant.
In Re: Pardo, et al. That he did not single out or choose the notebooks of
Facts: Galang, he argued that he choose the number 954, the
Code of Galang’s in examination, because it was stuck
Administrative proceeding are instituted against Atty. into his head, that this numbers are the first number he
Lanuevo, Bar Confidant and Atty. Galang, bar examinee saw at the Meralco post after he decided to bought a
in bar examination seeking for their disbarment and sweepstake tickets, and it is only coincidence that this
disciplinary action against Judge Pardo, et al., bar number was assigned to Galang. He further denied any
examiners for the major subjects, for their acts and connection with Galang, nor acquire monetary
omissions during the 1971 Bar Examinations. consideration from him.
This was after the confidential letter to the court of Galang on the other hand, also denied any involvement
Landicho, seeking for re-correction and re-evaluation of in the said act of Atty. Lanuevo, that he never know
his answers in the said bar examination. He stated that Atty. Lanuevo nor meet him.
the grade of one bar candidates was raised for one
reason or another, and that this was confirmed by Civil Issues:
Law examiner, Judge Pamaitan as well as by Atty. 1. WON Atty. Lanuevo should be disbarred.
Lanuevo. He contends that if bar examiners concerned
can reconsidered the grades without formal motion, 2. WON Atty. Galang should be disbarred.
3. WON Judge Pardo, Judge Pamatian, Atty. Tomacruz, asked the Chairman of bar Examination Committee and
Atty. Montecillo, Atty. Manalo and Atty. Pablo should be not just rely on Atty. Lanuevo’s representation.
administratively sanctioned.

Ruling:

1. YES, SC disbarred Atty. Lanuevo for being guilty of

serious misconduct. Office of Bar Confidant has
absolutely nothing to do in the re-evaluation or
reconsideration of the grades of the examinees who
failed to pass, that the only function of Atty. Lanuevo, as
bar Confidant is to tally the individual grades of every
examinee in all subjects and compute the general
average. The machination of Atty. Lanuevo seriously
betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him as Bar
Confidant, impairing the integrity of Bar Examinations
and undermining the public faith in SC.

In addition, although the investigation failed to prove

that Atty. Lanuevo received valuable consideration with
his act, SC took into consideration the proximity in point
of time between the official release of 1971 Bar Exam
and the acquisition of house and lot at BF Homes and
VW car of Atty. Lanuevo.

2. YES, SC also disbarred Atty. Galang, as a consequence

to the unauthorized reevaluation of his exams in 5
major subjects.

In addition, Atty. Galang is guilty of concealment his

criminal case of slight physical injuries. Atty. Galang
took the bar 7 times, and during those time when he
applied to take the bar, he never reveal in his
application form his criminal case he falsely represent to In Re: Petition to take lawyer’s oath by Cuevas.
the Court that he had no criminal case pending. Facts:
His continued failure to clear his name in the said Cuevas who passed the 1996 Bar, his oath-taking was
criminal case for 13 years indicate his lack of the held in abeyance in view of the Court’s resolution dated
requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good Aug. 1996, wherein he was permitted to take the bar
demeanor, he is therefore unworthy to become examination on the condition that he shall not allowed
member of the bar in the first place. to take the oath until and after the court approves so,
3. NO, Bar examiners, Judge Pardo, et al. does not due to his conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting
deserve imposition of any disciplinary action, because in Homicide, this conviction is about his participation in
they made the re-evaluation and correction of the exam the initiation rites of Lex Talionis Frat that caused the
of Galang in good faith and without any consideration life of Raul Camaligan.
derived therefrom, that they re-evaluated or increased He applied to the Court to allow him to take his oath
the grades of Galang without knowing his identity, was after he was discharged from probation and his case
because of the misrepresentation of Atty. Lanuevo. was considered closed and terminated. To support his
However, the Court remind them that they should petition he presented certification attesting to his
exercise greater care and caution, they should have righteousness, peaceful and law abiding character from
Mayor of Hamtic, Antique, Officer-in-charge of Police
Station of Hamtic, SK of Hamtic, its chairman and
officers, member of IBP Iloilo Chapter, Parish Priest, and
President of Parish Pastoral Counsil of Hamtic.

The Court also require the father of Raul Camaligan,

Atty. Camaligan to comment on this petition, Atty.
Camaligan states that: he forgiven Cuevas and his co-
defendants in the criminal case, as a Christian, and that
he whether to admit Cuevas to the legal profession, he
left it with the sound and judicious discretion of the
Court.

Issue: WON Cuevas should be allowed to take lawyer’s

oath.

Ruling: YES, SC allowed Cuevas to take the lawyer’s oath

subject to payment of appropriate fees.

Law profession is a noble profession and that person

who will be admitted to practice this privilege should
not only possess high standards of intellect but also
moral qualifications, and that it is the duty of the Court
to prevent the entry of underserving aspirant. But the
Court is willing to give Cuevas a chance in the same
manner that they allowed Argosino, his co-defendants,
considerinmg that Cuevas was discharged from
probation without any infraction and the certifications
he presented to prove his orighteousness and peaceful
character and prove that he already atone to the
unfortunate death of Raul Camaligan. The Court gave
him the benefit of the doubt, taking into consideration
the general tendency of the youth to be rash,
temerarious and uncalculating.
Samaniego vs. Atty. Ferrer
The Court reminded Cuevas that taking lawyer’s oath is
not mere formality recited for few minutes for cameras, Facts:
but he is urged to conduct himself beyond reproach at Samaniego filed administrative case against Atty. Ferrer
all times and live strictly according to his oath. before the IBP for immorality, abandonment and willful
refusal to give support to their daughter.

Samaniego alleged that she met Atty. Ferrer when she

was referred to him as potential client, then their
relationship became intimate, then they live as husband
and wife for 1 year then their daughter was born. When
their affair ended, Atty. Ferrer failed to give support to
their daughter. She presented their daughter’s birth and
baptismal certificate and photographs of her baptismal.
She admitted that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in
relationship back then but she did not think that he was
already married.
Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to support their
daughter and he even admitted his indiscretion, but he
reasoned that it was unconscionable to abandon his
wife and 10 children to cohabit with Samaniego.

IBP – recommended suspension of Atty. Ferrer from

practice of law for 6 months for refusing to support his
daughter with Samaniego.

Issue: WON Atty. Ferrer should be suspended.

Ruling: YES, SC suspended Atty. Ferrer for 6 months for

being guilty of gross immorality.

SC agreed with BP that Atty. Ferrer failed to give

support to his daughter with Samaniego, and the Court
further agreed with Office of Bar Confidant that Atty.
Ferrer’s affair with Samaniego showed his lack of good
moral character as member of the Bar, but the Court
dismissed Samaniego’s charge of abandonment because
Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them, he just returned to
his family.

Atty. Ferrer and other member of the Bar should follow

the norms under CPR, particularly Rule 1.01, that lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, which
provides that lawyer shall at all-time upheld the
integrity and dignity of legal profession and shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, whether in private or public life.

Illicit relation is a disgraceful and immoral conduct and

subject to disciplinary action, the penalty for such is
disbarment, or indefinite or definite suspension,
depending on the circumstances of the case, the case of
Atty. Ferrer, no aggravating circumstance was found,
hence, IBP’s sanction is adequate.
 Civil Registry certifies that there was no record
of marriage exists between them.
- On grossly immoral conduct, she alleged that
Atty. Cristal-Tenorio caused the dissemination
of libelous affidavit derogatory to Makati City
Councilo Jacome.
- As to malpractice or gross misconduct in office,
she alleged that Atty. Cristal-Tenorio authorizes
the illegal practice of law by her husband. Who
is not a lawyer, she presented the letterhead of
Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, where the name of
her husband is listed as senior partner, and in
the Sagip Communication Radio Group ID
signed by Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, her husband was
identified as Atty. And that he even appeared in
court. She further alleged that Atty. Cristal-
Tenorio converted her client’s money to her
own, which lead to her estafa case, and that
Atty. Cristal-Tenorio even threatened her and
her family with statement “isang bala ka lang”.

Atty. Cristal-Tenorio denied all the allegations:

- As to deceit, she declared that her marriage

with Felicisimo is valid and that her husband has
no prior and subsisting marriage with another
woman.
- As to grossly immoral conduct, she denied
dissemination of derogatory affidavit against
Councilor Jacome.
- As to malpractice or gross misconduct, at first
she denied forming a law partnership with her
husband and that the letterhead submitted is
false reproduction but later on, she admitted
Cambaliza vs. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio
that she listed her husband and other non-
Facts: lawyer as senior partners because they are
investors of her law office. The appearance of
Cambaliza, former employee of Atty. Cristal Tenorio in
her husband in court is as representative of her
her law office, filed disbarment case against Atty.
law office. She also denied that she threatened
Cristal-Tenorio for deceit, grossly immoral conduct and
Cambaliza.
malpractice or gross misconduct in office,
Later on, Cambaliza filed a Motion to Withdraw the
Cambaliza alleged that:
complaint, but this was not acted upon by IBP.
- On deceit, she alleged that Atty. Cristal-Tenoria
IBP – ruled that Cambaliza failed to substantiate her
falsely represent herself as marriage to
allegation of deceit and grossly immoral conduct, but
Felicisimo Tenorio, who has prior and subsisting
found her guilty of cooperating in the illegal practice of
marriage with another woman, she further
law by her husband, and suspends Atty. Cristal-Tenorio
allged that Atty. Cristal-Tenorio obtain false
for 6 months.
marriage contract considering that NSO and
Issue: WON Atty. Cristal-Tenorio should be suspended.
Ruling: YES, SC suspended Atty. Cristal-Tenorio from - Grossly immoral conduct – for contracting a 2nd
practice of law for 6 months. marriage despite the existence of his 1 st
marriage. SLU alleged that Atty. Dela Cruz was
SC agreed with IBP in not acting with motion to
legally married to Teresita, then he
withdraw of Cambaliza, because disbarment proceeding
subsequently married Mary Jane, but the
will proceed regardless of lack of interest of
subsequent marriage was annulled for being
complainant, because the said proceeding is not like
bigamous.
civil case, disciplinary proceedings involve no private
- Malpractice – for notarizing documents despite
interest and afford no redress for private grievance but
of expiration of his notarial commission, he
it is for public welfare. SC also agreed that deceit and
notarized the fooliwng: Affidavite of ownership,
grossly immoral conduct were not substantiated.
deed of sale, joint affidavit, sworn statement
But the Court found Atty.Cristal-Tenorio guilty of and many other.
assisting in the unauthorized practice of law by non-
Atty. Dela Cruz denied all the allegations but klater on
lawyer, her husband, this is in violation of Canon 9 and
admitted the contracting of subsequent marriage and
Rule 9.01 of CPR, which provides that lawyer shall not
notarization of documents despite his notarial
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice
commission had already expired.
of law and lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which may only be IBP – suspends Atty. Dela Cruz, 1 year for contracting
performed by lawyer. subsequent marriage without taking appropriate legal
steps to annul his first marriage, and another 1 year for
notarizing documents notwithstanding of expiration of
his notarial commission.

Issue: WON Atty. Dela Cruz should be suspended.

Ruling: YES, SC suspends Atty. Dela Cruz for 4 years, 2

years for disregarding CPR and another 2 years for
notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
commission.

Atty. Dela Cruz is guilty of contracting 2 nd marriage

despite the subsistence of his 1st marriage and without
seeking judicial action to annul his 1 st marriage, that
Atty. Dela Cruz was already a lawyer when he
contracted the bigamous marriage, hence, he cannot
St. Louis University Faculty and Staff vs. Atty. Dela Cruz feigned the defense of ignorance of the law. In addition,
the subsequent annulment of his 2 nd marriage, doesn’t
Facts:
affect this disciplinary action against him, because this
SLU faculty and staff filed disbarment case against their proceeding is as sui generis, for it is neither purely civil
principal, Atty. Dela Cruz on the grounds of: nor purely criminal action rather it is an investigation
conducted by the court to the erring officers of court,
- Gross misconduct – for having a pending
hence, acquittal in criminal action or withdrawal of
criminal case for child abuse allegedly
disbarment complaint will not affect the case.
committed by him against HS student, pending
Therefore, the annulmet of 2 nd marriage of Atty. Dela
administrative case filed by teacher, staff and
Cruz will not exonerate him from his wrongdoing, so
students and parents for his alleged
long as the quantum of proof – clear preponderance of
unprofessional and unethical acts of
evidence – in disciplinary proceedings against him is
misappropriating money, and pending labor
met, he is liable.
case file by SLU Faculty before NLRC for illegal
salary deduction However, the immoral conduct of Atty. Dela Cruz
exhibited a lack of morality degree required to him as
member of the Bar and he made mockery of marriage to step out of the car, he embraced her and kissed on
which is sacred institution, when he contracted 2 nd her check.
marriage, and it alkso constitutes dishonesty. But it is
Then, they again meet, she alleged that Atty. Macabata
not so gross as to disbar Atty. Dela Cruz, considering the
took advantage of her while on his car, that she felt
circumstance observe by IBP such as prior to his 2 nd
sleepy and Atty. Macabata kissed her lips and hold her
marriage and after failure opf his 1st, he has not been
breast, with that she immediately alighted his car. After
romantically involved with any woman for 7 years, that
such event, Atty. Macabata texted her, apologizing,
his 2nd marriage show his noble intentions and total love
which is according to her a manifestation of his guilt.
for his wife, that he never absconded his obligation to
support his wife and child, never disclaimed paternity Atty. Macabata denied all the allegations and state that
over his child, and that he remained celibate. it is impossible for him to commit the acts imputed to
him.
In addition, Atty. Dela Cruz violated the Notarial law and
CPR such as Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which provides that IBP – suspended Atty, Macabata from practice of law for
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral 3 months.
or deceitful conduct and Canon 7, which directs a
lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of Issue: WON Atty. Macabata should be suspended.
legal profession, when he notarizes documents despite Ruling: NO, SC dismissed the disbarment case and
of expiration of his commission. Notarization is not an REPRIMANDED Atty. Macabata with stern warning.
empty, meaningless, routinary act but it is invested with
public interest, it converts the private document into SC state that censure or reprimand is usually meted out
public one and is admissible in court without further for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature, and
proof of authenticity. for some minor infraction of the lawyer’s duty to the
court or internet.
His criminal, administrative and labor cases against Atty.
Dela Cruz did not discussed by the court considering Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters but
that they are still pending before proper forums. At it includes conduct with rectitude or indicative
such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is
in favor of the respondent. willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral
indifference to opinions of respectable members of the
community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good
order and public welfare.

Atty. Macabata admitted that he kissed Advincula but it

was not motivated by malice, considering that after
such event, Atty. Macabata texted her and apologized,
furthermore, the place where the place where the
incident happened is a place with several people and is
major jeepney route for 24 hours, if Atty. Macabata had
malicious intent he should have brought her to private
Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata
or remote place. Adviincula also failed to substantiate
Facts: her claim the Atty. Macabata took advantage his
position as lawyer and lure her to have a sexual
Advincula filed disbarment case against Atty. Macabata relations with him. A mere charge or allegation of
for gross immorality. wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not
She alleged that she seeks legal advice to Atty. synonymous with guilt.
Macabata fro her collectibles with Queensway Travel SC ruled that an act of kissing or beso-beso on the
and Tours, they met to discuss the possibility of her cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie,
filing a case against Queensway. After the said meeting, forms of greetings, casual and customary. Atty.
Atty. Macabata drive her home and when she is about Macabata’s act of kissing Advincula on her lips although
it was distasteful and considered offensive cannot be
considered grossly immoral.