Cases - Legal Ethics (Law)

7/29/2019 Cases - Legal Ethics (Law)

1/7

Cruz v Atty. Cabrera AC No. 5737 October 25, 2004

Facts: The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for misconduct in violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth year law student, appears in court in his own behalf

as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the respondent as counsel. During a hearing, the

respondent uttered remarks that the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the performance of his duties

as a lawyer. The complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who recommended suspension of respondent in

the practice of law for 3 months which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP Board recommending dismissalof the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.

RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not to such a magnitude

as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his profession. The court thereby dismissed the case due to lack of

merit.

Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer, Sr. A.C. No. 6585 April 21, 2005

Facts: The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment case against respondent,

Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave misconduct. The respondent was found to have issued 2 orders

awarding custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission, ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of

the said complainant, engaging in private practice, notarizing public documents, and attending court hearings while

filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time. The case was referred to the IBP and the

investigating commissioner recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6

months.

ISSUE: WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following alleged acts:

1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government employee;2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;

3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and

4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for engaging in private

practice.

RULING: The court held on the following:

1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in private practice (adopting the Civil

Service Commission Resolution) subject to some conditions with indispensable requirement to secure approval

from the CHR. In the absence of such approval, the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved to

have falsified his attendance in the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave of

absence.

2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his practice as a notary public.

3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to investigate all forms of human rights violation.

They cannot try and decide cases.

With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,

the court ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction.


2/7

MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the

checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the

case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The

Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBPDirector for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to

Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding

various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely

suspending the respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a

commercial document.

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she

does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its

presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing

worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension

of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has,

apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crime

involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously

committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to

impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction

by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v.

Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has

become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the

privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has

proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.


3/7

Aguirre v Rana B.M. No. 1036 June 10, 2000

FACTS: Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath but not to sign the roll of

attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges respondent with unauthorized

practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. Apparently, the respondent

appeared as counsel to an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of

Masbate before he took his oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he onlyprovide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He contends that he did

not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings

disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the respondent actively participated in the

proceeding and signed in the pleading as counsel for the candidate.

Issue: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.

Ruling: The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized practice of law. It held that all the activities he

participated during that time involves the practice of law despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar.

The right to practice law is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally upright and with the proper

knowledge and skills. It involves strict regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its members. Passing

the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential

requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this

Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted

in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he was denied admission to the bar.

In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the

provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By

Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment ofmembership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.

He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a

member of the IBP in order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and

thereby null and void.

Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are organized

by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of

which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which

includespayment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of

regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional rights of the

respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures

to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of

the bar.
http://talkaboutphilippinelaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-re-edillon-84-scra-554-1978.htmlhttp://talkaboutphilippinelaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-re-edillon-84-scra-554-1978.html


4/7

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues

B. M. No. 1370

May 9, 2005

Facts: Petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo Jr. sought for exemption from payment of IBP dues in the amount of

P12,035.00 as alleged accountability for the years 1977-2005 stating in his letter dated 22 September 2004 that

from July 1962 until 1986, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service then migrated and worked in the USA

(United States of America) from December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003.

He cannot be assessed Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues, according to him, for the years he was working

in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of their profession while in

government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was

inactive in the practice of law

Held: Being an IBP member entails various responsibility which includes the payment of membership fees, dues,

etc. regardless whether the member is active or not in his field.

Therefore, petitioners request for exemption from payment of IBP dues is denied.

Santos Jr. v Llamas A.C. No. 4749 1.20.00

FACTS: This is a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation and non-payment of IBP membership dues.

For years, the respondent does not indicate proper PTR no. in his practice of the law profession. Now of old age, he

contends that he is engaged in the limited practice of his profession and as a senior citizen, he is exempt from

paying taxes and membership dues with the IBP.

ISSUE: WON the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited practice of law and for

being a senior citizen.

RULING: No. He is not exempt since Rule 139-A requires all IBP members to pay the annual fee and failure thereof

for 6 months merits suspension of the membership and for 1 year becomes a ground for removal of the members

name from the Rolls of Attorney regardless one is a practicing lawyer or not. His non-renewal of his PTR is a

misrepresentation to the public and the courts that he has paid his dues violating the Code of Professional

Responsibility.


5/7

Ui v. Bonifacio Petitioner

Facts of the case: Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of

immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui,husband of Leslie Ui, whom

they be got two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship between them

and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail.

According, however to respondent, she is avictim in the situation. When respondent met Carlos Ui, she had knownhim to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover,

the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real

status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Uinever lived

together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to gradually accept thesituation. Respondent however

presented a misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.

Ruling: The practice of law is a privilege.A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal

profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of

due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics.one of the conditions prior to admission

to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character.More importantly, possession of good moralcharacter must be continuous asa requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the

loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral

conduct,or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have

moral integrity in addition to professional probity.In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was not proven to have

conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case is dismissed. But she is reprimanded and given a

stern warning with regards to the of her marriage contract with an inculcated date.

PEDRO G. TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA,A.C. No. 5151, 11/19/2004.

FACTS: Complainants alleged that Respondent, a former judge,abandoned his legal wife and cohabited with a

married woman wi t h wh om he ha s tw o ch il dr e n i n wh os e bi rt h ce rt i fi ca te s . Respondent false

indicated that he and his paramour are married.Further, in his certificate of candidacy, Respondent declared his

le ga l wi fe as hi s sp ou se wh il e in a su bs eq ue nt ce rt if ic at e of candidacy, he declared his civil

status as separated. Respondentcontended that the fact that he was elected as Mayor shows that he has not offended

thepublics sense of morality.

RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY for immorality until he s ubmit s s atis facto ry proof that he has

abando ned hisimmoral course of conduct. That Respondent continues to publiclyand openly cohabit with a

woman who is not his legal wife, thus,siring chi ldren by her , shows his lack of good m ora l

charact er.R espo ndent shoul d ke ep i n mind t hat the requi rement of goodmoral character is not only acondition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also continuing requirement to maintain ones good

standing in the legal profession.


6/7

MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the

checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the

case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The

Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP

Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant toRule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding

various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely

suspending the respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a

commercial document.

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she

does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its

presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing

worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension

of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has,

apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crime

involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously

committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to

impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction

by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v.

Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has

become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the

privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has

proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.


7/7

Cojuangco vs Palma A.C. No. 2474 June 30, 2005

Facts: On June 22, 1982, respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting marriage, wed Maria Luisa Cojuangco

the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed on November 1982, a complaint

disbarment against respondent. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 2, 1983, the court referred the

case to OSG for investigation and recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of thecomplainant and his witness in the presence of respondents counsel. On March 19, 1984 respondent filed with the

OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the final actions of his civil case for the

declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment

proceeding, but it was denied. The OSG transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent

guilty of gross immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of

law for a period of three years. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a firm

factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because his

first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity.

Issue: Whether or not a subsequent void marriage still needs a judicial declaration of nullity for the purpose of

remarriage.

Held: Respondents arguments that he was of the firm factual and legal conviction when he declared before the

HIC authorities that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of

nullity cannot exonerate him. In Terre vs Terre, the same defense was raised by respondent lawyer whose

disbarment was also sought. We held: xxx respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known

that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this court which holds that purposes of

determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first

marriage was null and void an initio is essential. Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terreheld that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own

argument, his frist marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second

marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal.

Documents

Cases - Legal Ethics (Law)