CASEFACTSISSUE/RULING/DECISION

1. MERCEDES NAVA vs ATTY. SORONGON

2. ARCIGA vs MANIWANG

3. ATTY. LINCO vs ATTY. LACEBAL

4. BARRIENTOS vs DAAROL

5. BARRERA vs LAPUT

6. TIONG vs FLORENDO

7. SANTOS vs ATTY LLAMAS

8. GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENT POOL INC vs ATTY NALDOZA

9. FATHER AQUINO vs ATTY PASCUA

10. ISENHARDT vs ATTY REAL

11. LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO AREVALO JR. REQUESTING EXEMPTIOM FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES

12. ESPINOSA/ GLINDO vs OMANA

13. VITUG vs RONGCAL14. BAYONLA vs REYES

Nava charged Atty. Sorongon with dishonest conduct representing clients with conflicting interest She alleged that Atty. Sorongon has been her counsel for so many years and had represented her in various cases but the respondent informed her of his intention to withdraw as her counsel in two of her cases due to his recent stroke his doctor advised him not to handle cases that is complicated in nature. The complainant further alleged that she continuously paid for his fees even the latter has represented clients with hostile interests and filed a case against her on their behalf The complainant ha issued several checks which was dishonoured and that the respondent assisted Francisco Atas in collecting the amount and assisted in filing a complaint against her. The respondent admitted that the complainant was one of his clients Initially he handled one case but later acceded to represent her in other cases with or without atty.s fees. The respondent also admitted having represented Francisco Atas but he asserted that he did not violate any code of professional ethics. He insisted that their atty.-ct relationship was already terminated Since he handled only 2 estafa cases for her and that Atas did not know anything that would prejudice her The complainant pointed out that the respondent did not withdraw in some of her cases and even if assuming that he did had withdrawn as her counsel he should not have accepted cases against her.

Magdalena Arciga asked for the disbarment of Atty. Maniwang on the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he refused to fulfil his promise of marriage to her. Their illicit relationship resulted in the birth of their child. Magdalena was a medtech student and Segundino was a law student when they met and became sweethearts but when Magdalena refused to have a tryst with him, hestopped visiting her.

They renewed their relationship the following month and had sexual intercourse. When Segundino asked her why she refused in his earlier proposal she jokingly said that she was in love with another man and thay have a child and he remarked that he didnt mind even that was the case They had repeated acts of cohabitation and started telling his acquaintances that they were secretly married. Segundino transferred to Davao del Sur and Magdalena stayed in Cebu. He continued to send her telegrams professing his love for her. When Magdalena found out that she was pregnant Segundino went to her hometown to talk to Magdalenas parents and told them that they were already married even they were not really so. And that the church wedding be deferred until he passes his bar examination He continued sending telegrams to Magdalena and reassured her that they will marry if he passes the bar. She gave birth on September 4, 1973 but Segundino was not present but he went to Cebu for the baptism of their child. On April 25, 1975 Segundino passed her bar exams. Several days after his oath taking he stopped corresponding with Magdalena. Fearing that there was something amiss Magdalena went to Davao but Segundino told her that they could not get married because they lack money. In December 1975 she had another trip to Davao but Segundino told her that they could not get married because he already married Erlinda Ang. Segundino followed her and inflicted physical injuries upon her because she had a confrontation with his wife. She reported the assault and secured medical treatment in e hospital. Segundino admitted that he and Magdalena were lovers but breached the promise because of Magdalenas shady past that she already had an illegitimate child before Michael.

Administrative complaint of Atty. Linco against Atty. Lacebal before the IBP for disciplinary action for his failure to perform his duty as a notary public which resulted in the violation of their rights over their property. Complainant claimed that she was a widow of Atty. Albert Linco, the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements consisting 126 sq meters at Valley view executive village, Cainta, Rizal covered by a Transfer certificate of title no.259001 Complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a deed of donation allegedly executed by her husband in favour of Alexander Linco, a minor. She also alleged that AttY. Linco and her mother Lina Toledo, mother of the done, personally appeared before the respondent on July 30 2003, despite the fact that Atty. Linco died on July 29, 2003 She claimed that the respondents connivance with Toledo was a violatvei of her, her childrens rights and a violation of law. In his answer, he admitted that he notarized a deed of donation in favour of Alexander Linco as represented by Lina Toledo. Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003 he was visited buy Atty. Linco through an emissary in the person of Claie Algodon and he was informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to discuss something with him. He pointed out that Atty. Linco was sick but was articulate and in full control of his faculties Atty. Linco showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the property subject to donation and claimed that he was aked to notarize the deed of donation in his presence along with the witnesses He explained that since he had no idea what he will notarize, he did not bring his notarial book and seal with him so he asked Toledo and Algodon to bring the documents to his office. On july 30, 2003 he claimed that Toledo and Alogodon went to his law office and informed him that Atty. Linco has passed away and he was asked to notarize the deed and he consented to do so. He admitted that he was presented the DOD on July 8, 2003 and that he was not the one who prepared it and that he only notarized it on July 30, 2003.

On August 20, 1975, complainant Victoria Barrientos seeks the disbarment of Transfiguracion Daarol, on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct . The complainant Victoria Barrientos is single, a college student and was about 20 years and 7 months old that time of her relationship with the respondent, born on Dec 23, 1952 while the respondent was married, general manager of zaneco, 41 years of age born on August 9, 1932 The respondent is married to Romualda Sumalyo with whom he has a son the said respondent had been separated with his wife for about 16years at the time of his relationship with the complainant. The respondent had been known to the Barrientos family for quite some time, having been the former student of the complainants father in 1952 and a former classmate of the complainants mother. He also became acquainted with the complainants siblings. He befriended the complainant and they became close friends when she agreed to be an usherette during the Masonic convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City from June 28-June 30. He used to fetch her in the morning and took her home in the evening. The respondent courted the complainant and after 1 week of courtship, the complainant accepted the respondents love. On the evening of August 20 1973, complainant with her parents permission was the respondents; partner during the Chamber of commerce affair at the Lopez skyroom and at about 1 am they left the place. But before they went home they went to an airport in Sicayab and parked the jeep at the beach and they consummated the sexual act and that after their first sexual act, the respondent would usually have joyrides with the complainant which usually ended at the beach where they make love for 2-3 times a week. That a result, the complainant became pregnant. Although he promised her that they would marry after 6months after she accepted his love, he told the complainant that she could not marry her because he is already married but was already separated for almost 16years.

Nieves Barrera seeks the disbarment of Casiano Laput upon the ground that the respondent as her counsel as the administratrix of the estate of his late husband had misappropriated several sums of money and tried to appropriate 2 parcels of land belonging to the same and threatened the complainant into signing several documents with a gun, despite the fact that she is already 72 years old. The respondent admitted that he and the complainant had an atty-ct relationship but denied the main allegations and that he alleged that it was only a scheme to beat off his claim for attorneys fees in the said special proceeding. The respondent showed the complainant several pleadings requiring her signature. The complainant refused to sign it and told him to leave the said pleadings in order that she may ask somebody first to translate it for her. The complainant became angry and at the same time drawing his revolver and placing it on his lap in order to threaten the complainant into signing the papers and she did against her will.

Before the court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Elpidio Tiong against Atty. George Florendo for gross immorality and grave misconduct. Elpidion Tiong and his wife are real estate lessors in Baguio they are also engaged in the assembly nd repair of motor vehicles in Pangasinan. They engaged in the services of Atty. Florendo not only as their legal counsel but also their business administrator whenever the respondent would leave to the USA. The complainant began to suspect that the respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair and his suspicion was confirmed in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when in their residence he chanced upon a telephone conversation between the two. She confronted his wife and she denied but she broke down and eventually confessed to their love affair which began on 1993. The respondent likewise admitted. The respondent initiated a meeting with their spouses and admitted to their illicit relationship. They met again and they signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit affair and seeked forgiveness from their spouses.

This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Llamas.

Atty Llamas indicates IBP Rizal 259060 sometimes, he does not indicate any PTR for payment of professional tax. The respondent was dismissed as a Pasay City judge supreme Court Admin no. 1037-CJ en banc decision on 0ct. 28, 1981, conviction for estafa The respondent filed a certification on 1997 to the president of the IBP that the last payment of his dues was in 1991 since then he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present. On 1997, he was asked to comment on the complaint within 10 days from the receipt of the notice He continued the use of the same OR no. of the Rizal IBP in 1996, 1996, 1997

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Naldoza. The complainant asserts that the respondent should be disbarred for the following acts:A. appealing a decision knowing the same was already final and executorB. deceitfuly obtaining 2555 US dollars from the complainant, allegedly for cash bond in the appealed caseC. issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act. The complainant alleges that the respondent appealed the POEA decision despite knowing that it had already been final and executory. The respondent also collected 2555 dollars and explained that the amount will cover all the expenses to be incurred in the petition for review with the Supreme Court and would be paid to the Supreme Court in connection with the olano case. In an effort to conceal his misappropriation of the money entrusted him, respondent gave a photocopy of a receipt reportedly showing that the supreme court had received the 2,555 dollars from him.

In his complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified 2 documents committed as follows:A. he made it appear that he had notarized the affidavit complaint of one Joseph Arcoda entering the same as doc no. 1213 page no. 243, book 3 series of 1998 dated December 10, 1998B. He also made it appear that he had notarized the affidavit-complaint of one Remigio Domingo entering the same as doc no.1214 page no. 243 book 3 series of 1998, Dted Dec 10, 1998 In his comment he admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10 1998 but they were not entered into his Notarial register due to the oversight of his secretary, whose affidavit was attached to his comment. The photocopy of his notarial register showed that the last entry was on December 29, 1998 is doc no 1200 page 240.

Disbarment complaint against Atty Real for allegedly notarizing a document without the appearance of one of the parties. Complainant alleged that on September 14 200 a SPA was supposedly executed by her. The SPA authorizes his brother to mortgage her real property in Antipolo City. Complainant averred the she never appeared before him and she gave a photocopy of her German passport to show them that she arrived in the Philippines on June 22 200 and left the country on august 4 2000. The passport further indicated that she arrived again in the Philippines only on July 1 2001. The complainan submitted that because of the respondents acts the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged by the rural bank of Antipolo City and was foreclosed. The respondent denied the allegations and he narrated that in sometime in the middle of 2000, spouses Wilfredo and LOrena Gusi approached him and seek advice regarding a computer business they were planning to put up. During one of their meetings, the spouses allegedly introduced a woman by the name Nesa Isenhardt, sister of Wilfredo, as the financer of their proposed business. He then notarized the said SPA and maintained that it was signed in the presence of all the parties.

This is a request for exemption from the payment of the IBP dues filed by the petitioner Atty. Cecilio Arevalo In his letter, on Sept 22 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment pf IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid from 1977-2005. He alleged that after he passed the bar exam on 1961, he started working at the Philippine Civil service until 1986, then he migrated to the USA and worked there until he retired on 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the time he worked here in the Philippines since the law prohibits him to practice law while working at the civil service and neither can he be assessed for the years he was working in th USA. On November 2004, the IBP submitted their cooment: that membership on the IBP is not based in actual practice of law; a lawyer continues to be included in the roll of attorneys. The IBP maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption of payment of annual dues as requested by respondent that was is allowed is voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership. In his reply(petitioner): he questioned the IBPs policy on non exemption regardless of whether or not they are engaged in active and inactive practice. He also posits that collection of the IBP dues would be oppressive to him since he has been in an inactive status and is without income derived from his practice of law. He adds that his removal due to non payment would constitute deprivation of property right without due process of law.

Omana is charged with violation of her oath as a lawyer, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. Espinosa and her wife Marantal sought advice from Atty. Mona whether they could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage. Omana the prepared a document entitled Kasunduan ng paghihiwalay Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced of the validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, they started implementing the terms and conditions. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the property they acquired during their marriage Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, Glindo, a law graduate who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not valid. They then hired a lawyer to file a comlaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. She admitted that she knew Glindo but does not personally knows Espinosa and denied that she prepared the contract. But admitted that he went to see her asked her to notarize the said document but she told him that it was illegal. She further alleged that while she was out of the office, Espinosa returned the next day and was able to persuade her part time office staff into notarizing the contract and the staff forged her signature.

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment for gross dishonesty, deceit, conversion, breach of trust filed against Atty. Purita Reyes by Teresita Byonla, her client. Paz Durban and Petra Durban were sisters who had jointly owned a parcel of land situated in Butuan City. They died without ling a will. Their land was expropriated in connection with the construction of the Bacansi airport. An expropriation compensation amounting to P 2, 453, 429 was to be paid to their heirs. Bayonla and her uncle. Bayonla and his uncle engaged in the legal services of Atty. Reyes to collect their expropriation shate in the air tanposrtation office, CDO. Agreeing to her attys fees of 10% whatever amount she collected. On Nov 1993 she collected 1M from the ATO; that Bayonlas share after deducting her Attys fees would be P75,000 but Atty. Reyes only delivered P23,000 and had failed to deliver the balance 52,000 even with repeated demands. On June 1995, Atty. Reyes collected P121,119.11 from the ATO and that Bayonlass share after deduction of fees was P109,007.20 but Atty Reyes only heanded her P56,500 and he failed to deliver the balance; and that Atty Reyes shoud be dibared for depriving her of her share. Respondents comment: she admitted that Bayonla and Alfredo engaged in her legal services for the purpose of collecting their share; that as consideration for her serices, they agreed upon a 40% contingent fee for her. That she had given to Bayonla morethan what had been due her; that Alfredo had received the check from ATO for the scond release corresponding to the share of Bayonla and Alfredo; that she had received only her contigent fee in the second release.; that she had incurred the travel expenses in collecting such share amd that she could be absolved from the liability arising from the complaint. The parties were required to submit documents relative to their defenses especially the amount released by ATO. Ony the respondent submitted. It could be inferred that the complainant was supposed to receive P205,971.11 as her share. Inasmuch as the attys fees of 40% was supported by evidence instead of complainants allegation of 10% then the respondent was entitled P82,388.45 as atttys fees;leaving the balance 123,582 to the complainant.

Violation of Canon 15.03 It was recommended that the respondent be suspended for 1 years with a warning that a similar offense in the future may be dealt with more severly When the respondent learned of the decision he alleged that no formal investigation was made The records show that no formal investigation was conducted by the IBP Wherefore, the administrative case in remanded to the IBP for further proceedings. It is directed to act on his referral with dispatch.

The solicitor general ordered the dismissal of the case. In his opinion, cohabitation and promise of marriage does not warrant his disbarment. Complaint for disbarment against the respondent was dismissed.

On November 2005, the IBP-CBD found the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial law and code of professional responsibility They also observed that the respondent wanted it to appear that sice Atty. Linco appeared before him oJuly 8, 2003 it was ministerial on his part to natarize the deed on July 30, 2003. He violated the atty.s oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood FOR THE BREACH OF Notarial Law code and professional responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Lacebal is revoked. He is disqualified from the reappointment period of 2 years. He is also suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and warned that the repetition of the same acts will be dealt with more severely.

The respondent was found guity of grossly immoral act and was disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Here, respondent, an already married man proposed love and marriage to complainant still a 20 year old minor, knowing the she did not have the required legal capacity. The respondent succeeded in having carnal relations with her by deception and made her pregnant, suggested abortion, breached his promise to marry her and then deserted her and the child.

The respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and accordingly suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. The offense in this case is compounded that by the circumstance that, being a member of the bar and an officer the court, the offender shouldve set an examples a man of peace and a champion of the rule of law and worse that the offender offended the very person whom he pledged to defend and to protecthis client

Violation of CANON1 and rule 1.01 and CANON 7 and rule 7.03 Failure to maintain good moral character Respondents act of having an illicit affair with his client manifested disrespect for the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Respondent is guilty of gross immorality and is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months effective upon notice with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

VIOLATION OF CANON 1, CANON 7, CANON 10 and rule 10.01 Atty Llamas is sus pended from the practice of law for 1 year or until he paid his IBP dues.

Attorney Naldoza is hereby disbarred and his name be stricken in the roll of attorneys.

Atty. Pascua was declared guilty of misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for 3 months with a stern warning that the repetition of similar act be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission if still existing, is ordered revoked. A notarial document is by law entitiled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care to comply with the formalities of the basic requirement in the performance of the duties. Under the notarial law, a notary public must enter in such chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to or acknowledged before him, the person executing, sweIaring to or acknowledging the instrument. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.

The respondent violated his oath and the code of professional responsibility. The notarial commission of Atty. Real is revoked and he is disqualified for reappointment as a notary public for 2 years and suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. He is warned that repetition of similar will be dealt with more severely.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues Membership in the IBP is compulsory and it requires financial support as a condition to practice law and retention of his name in the roll of attorneys. It must be borne in mind that to practice law is a privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is to pay membership dues and failure to abide entails loss of such privilege. Petitioners request is DENIED. He is ordered to pay 12,035.00 within a non extended period of 10 days from the receipt of this decision. Failure to do so will merit his suspension to practice law.

Issue: Whether Omana violated the Code of professional responsibility. The IBP-CBD found that Omana violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility. The IBP stated that Omana failed to exercise due negligence in the performance of her notary public and to comply with the reqts of law. They also noted the inconsistencies that she claimed that it was her part time office staff who notarized it then said that it was her maid. The court ruled that extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The court also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate disintegration of marriage. Atty. Omana is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and Revoke Atty. Omanas notarial commission, if still existing and SUSPEND her as a notary public for 2 years.

Violation of CANON 16 Based on the records: first release P84,852 then secon release P121,119.11. her total share from the two releases was P205,971 with AttyReyes being entitled of 40% attys fees. The net share of Bayonla was P121852.67 but Atty. Reyes only delivered to her only P79,000 which was short of P44,852 despite the demands and the order from the IBP. The pendency of other cases does not halt them from submitting an accounting and the amount due to Bayonla. Denial of due process The court orders Atty. Reyes to pay complainant Teresita Bayonla within 30 days from yhe receipt of this decision the amount P44,852 ith interest of 12% per annum from June 22, 1997 and to complete written accounting and inventory. SUSUPENDS her from the practice of law for a period of two years effective from the receipt of this decision and a warning that a similar offens would be dealt with mmore severely.