Guevarra vs.

Eala

Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct
and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January
2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.

After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene
had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss
you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, he also
learned later that Irene was pregnant.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.

Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in
any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334
of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with
her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2
of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that
he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In re: Tagorda

FACTS:

Atty. Tagorda, in his card written in Spanish and Ilocano, noted his capability as a lawyer such as executing a
deed of sale, collection of loans, etc. Also, in his letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home
municipality, he also advertised his profession as a lawyer and even asked a favor to disseminate this
information to the barrio people in any of their meetings or social gatherings.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the advertisement of Atty. Tagorda through the card and letter is wrong and be punished.

RULING: Yes. The acts of Atty Tagorda of direct and indirect advertising and stirring up litigation were violative
of the Code of Ethics. Still, the most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and
especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust.

It becomes the duty of the court to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by
lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works
against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless
litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as
mitigating, circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was
unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third, his promise
not to commit a similar mistake in the future. Atty. Tagorda is suspended for one month.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic

Facts of the Case:

Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements which states undignified
phrases like-- “Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT,
ABSENCE, VISA. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to 6:00pm 7th Floor
Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue, Manila.”

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in The Philippine Star
because it is composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is,
especially on marriage problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.

Issue:

Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.

A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his goods. The Legal Clinic
promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages which are undoubtedly contrary to law.

The only allowed form of advertisements would be: (1.) Citing your involvement in a reputable law list, (2.) An
ordinary professional card (3.) Phone directory listing without designation to a lawyer’s specialization.

JULIO ZETA vs. FELICISIMO MALINAO

Facts:

An administrative complaint was filed against Felicisimo Malinao, a court interpreter of the Court of First
Instance of Catbalogan, by certain Julio Zeta charging him of illegally appearing in court; grave misconduct in
office inciting and instigating persons to grab land or coerce and tell them not to be afraid as he is a court
employee and has influence over judges; crime of falsification for tampering his daily time records because
even he has been out practicing in the court, he would fill his time record as present; and violation of the Civil
Service Law by engaging in private practice of profession without permission from the Department Head.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitutes misconduct and result to his dismissal from
service.

Ruling: Yes. It is clear that respondent’s actions constitute grave misconduct and his defense that "his
participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason
of poverty and the absence of one in the locality" cannot, considering that in appearing as counsel in court, he
did so without permission from his superiors and, worse, he falsified his time record of service to conceal his
absence from his office on the dates in question. WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby
ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court of First Instance, with prejudice to
reemployment in the judicial branch of the government.

Ramos v. Rada

FACTS:

Moises Rada is a messenger in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, Branch II. Without prior
permission therefor, he accepted the appointment and discharged the duties as administrator of the real
properties of a private corporation. He is now charged with violation of Section 12 of Civil Service Rule XVIII.

ISSUE:

WON respondent violated said provision.

RULING:

Yes but only a technical violation. He may, however, apply, if he so desires, for permission to resume his
business connection with the corporation, in the manner above indicated.

Penticostes vs Ibanez

FACTS:
Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS premiums which complaint was
assigned to Prosecutor Ibañez for preliminary investigation. In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion
gave the amount of P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her SSS contribution in arrears. Respondent did
not pay the SSS, hence on Nov. 16, 1990, a complaint was filed against the respondent for professional
misconduct in allegedly misappropriating the amount. On 23 November 1990, the respondent paid SSS the
amount of P1,804.00 on behalf of Encarnacion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and have violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

RULING:

It is glaringly clear that respondent’s non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion
is gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The belated payment does not excuse
his misconduct. Neither would his defense that the acts complained of were not done by him in his office as a
prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion may not strictly be considered a client of
respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer’s handling of funds of a client is applicable. Respondent’s failure to
immediately remit the amount gives rise to the presumption of misappropriation. That is in gross violation of
general morality as well as professional ethics, it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty
and fair dealing is expected and required of every member of the Bar. Want of moral integrity is to be more
severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. The respondent was reprimanded with
stern warning.

Roy v. CA

Facts:

The petitioners owned a firewall that had weakened and collapsed on the tailoring shop owned by the private
respondents, causing injuries and death to Marissa Bernal, a daughter. The RTC ruled that the petitioners were
guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to respondents. The petitioners appealed to the CA, but the
latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. A copy of the decision of the CA was received by the petitioners on
August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal, the petitioners
asked the CA to extend the time to file a motion for reconsideration. According to a previous case, Habaluyas
Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration
cannot be extended. The petitioners contend that the case of Habaluyas could not be made binding because it
has not been published in the Official Gazette at the time the CA promulgated its decision.

Issue:

Is the ruling on an unpublished case binding?

Ruling:

Yes. There is no law requiring the publication of a Supreme Court decision for it to be binding and effective.
The counsel of the petitioners should be responsible for keeping abreast with Supreme Court decisions as a
lawyer.
Collantes vs Renomeron

FACTS:

Complainant, house counsel for V&G, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Vincent Renomeron, Register
of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regards to the application of V&G for
registration of 163 pro forma. Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

Yes. The acts of dishonesty and oppression which respondent committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law

REYES vs GAA

FACTS:

Wellington Reyes, complainant, reported to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the
victim of extortion by respondent Atty. Salvador Gaa, an Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating
a complaint for estafa filed by complainant’s business rival. The NBI agents then apprehended respondent in
an entrapment operation set up by them.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred on the grounds of malpractice and willful violation of lawyer’s oath.

RULING:

Yes. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official, which also constitutes
as a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action .

IGOY v SORIANO

FACTS:

Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy, et al. vs. Mactan Shangrila Hotel. Engineer
William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. According to Igoy’s
friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is pending in the Court of Appeals. Atty. Soriano
demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the former reminded the latter the he will only be able to help in the case as
soon as the case was lifted to the Supreme Court. Igoy’s case received an unfavorable decision in the Court of
Appeals and Atty. Soriano offered to prepare the Petition for Review to be filed in the Supreme Court. Atty.
Soriano asked for an additional P20,000. Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano
which was received by his son. Supreme Court denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality. Igoy later
found out that Atty. Soriano is not a Court of Appeals Justice and filed this complaint against Igoy in the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

Yes! Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and is suspended
from the practice of law. Atty. Soriano’s offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty
may be imposed on him. However, resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts.
Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for public service is a
public trust. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their reputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. The nature and responsibilities of public officers
enshrined in the Constitution are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as
working standards and attainable goals that should e matched with actual deeds.

Ali vs Bubong

Facts:

Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong was holding position in the Register of Deeds of Marawi City. An administrative
complaint was charged against him for illegal exaction, indiscriminate issuance of TCTs and manipulating the
criminal complaint filed against the respondent’s relative for violation of Anti-Squatting Law. The LRA absolved
him but the through the recommendation of the Sec of Justice, Pres. Ramos issued an administrative order
dismissing the respondent for gross misconduct for the imprudent issuance of TCTs and manipulating the
criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. Due to outcome of the administrative case against
respondent, the petitioner sought for the disbarment of the former because it has become
obvious that respondent had proven himself unfit to be further entrusted with duties of an attorney and is a
serious threat to the integrity of legal profession. The respondent denied the allegations against him. After
investigation, the IBP recommended for the suspension of the respondent. Upon the death of the
petitioner, his heirs moved for the withdrawal of the deceased petition for disbarment

Issue: Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in
government service

Held:

Yes. The CPR does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the gov’t service. Canon 6.02
provides that a lawyer in gov’t service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interest, not allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Thus, where a lawyer’s misconduct as a
government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency,
then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar.

Muring v Gatcho

Facts: This is an admin complaint filed by Atty. Muring against Atty. Gatcho, Nelpa Calayag, Exec Assistant V,
and Atty. Edna Paña. Atty Paña was employed as counsel in a case pending with the CA wherein Gatcho,
Calayag and Muring was employed. It was alleged by Muring that Paña disclosed to him that Justice Abesamis
demanded and received from Paña P450,000 to facilitate a favorable decision from CA in a case then handled
by Paña and that Gatcho and Calayag also demanded P150,000 from her employer in exchange for a favorable
decision from Justice Melo. It was also alleged that Paña sent the complainant threatening messages to
prevent him from exposing the pay-off otherwise she would show Justice Abesamis the TSN of the adoption
case where complainant appeared as counsel while employed as a court attorney.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Gatcho should be held liable.

Atty. Gatcho should have known that as a government lawyer, he was prohibited from engaging in notarial
practice, or in any form of private legal practice for that matter. Atty. Gatcho cannot now feign ignorance or
good faith, as he did not seek to exculpate himself by providing an explanation for his error. Atty. Gatcho’s
filing of the petition for commission, while not an actual engagement in the practice of law, appears as a
furtive attempt to evade the prohibition.

FACTS:

Sometime in 1980, M/V PAVLODAR, owned and operated by the Far Eastern Shipping Company, arrived at the
Port of Manila. When the vessel reached the landmark, Gavino ordered the engine stopped and anchor
dropped which was relayed by Kavankov to the crew. However, the anchor did not take hold and the bow of
the vessel rammed into the apron of the pier causing considerable damage to the pier and the vessel. The PPA,
through the OSG, filed a complaint for a sum of money against the FESC, Capt. Senen C. Gavino and the Manila
Pilots Association, praying that the defendants therein be held jointly and severally liable to pay for damages
plus costs of suit., which the trial court and the CA decided in the affirmative. Neither of the defendants was
happy with the decision and both of them elevated their respective plaints to the SC via separate petitions for
review on certiorari. However, on matters of compliance with procedural requirements, the conduct of the
respective counsel for FESC, PPA and OSG leaves much to be desired, to the displeasure and disappointment of
the Court. The records showed that the counsels of FESC filed several motion for extension of time to file
petition totaling to 210 days, and 180 days for the OSG before the comment was filed to the court and copies
where not furnished to the parties involved; the certification against forum shopping is also defective.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the counsel violated the CPR.

2. Whether or not the canons under the CPR applies to lawyers in government service.

Ruling:

1. Yes. As between the lawyer and the courts, a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. He is
an officer of the court exercising a privilege which is indispensable in the administration of justice. Candidness,
especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. A lawyer is obliged to
observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. A lawyer should not only
help attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede,
obstruct or prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. Sad to say, the members of said law firm sorely failed to observe their duties
as responsible members of the Bar.

2. Yes. the Court find a lackadaisical attitude and complacency on the part of the OSG in the handling of its
cases and an almost reflexive propensity to move for countless extensions.

MISAMIN VS SAN JUAN

Facts: Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the proceeding
before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police. Respondent contends that
the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his appearance as
counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the
suspension or removal of attorneys.

Issue: Whether or not the administrative case against the defendant should prosper

Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court ruled that the matter is to be decided in an administrative
proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless, the court held that while
the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to
avoid all appearances of impropriety.

PNB vs Cedo

Facts:

PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving

gov’t. service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened
with in

said service. Cedo was the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset management Group of PNB.

During Cedo’s stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale of steel sheets to Ms. Ong

and 2.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo,

after leaving the bank appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a civil action,
the

Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior
Partner.

Cedo claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Ong’s case. He also claims that even if it

was his law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being handled by Atty. Ferrer.

Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.

Held: Cedo violated Rule 6.02.

In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty. and the client, inquiry of the

nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further

prejudice the complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against his former client

information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact that their previous relationship should have

precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all the

parties concerned after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in
behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to

oppose.

Pantaleon vs Guadiz

Facts:

In this case, respondent Judge is charged with Gross Inefficiency, Neglect and Delay in Elevating the Records of
Civil Case No. 88-2187, to which the complainant was the plaintiff’s counsel. After receiving an adverse
decision, complainant filed a Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period and consequently, respondent
Judge issued an order for the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. However, despite
constant follow-up by counsel, three years have passed and the records of the case have not been transmitted.

In his Answer, respondent judge contends that the court stenographer misplaced the transcript of the
testimony of one of the witnesses, hence the record could not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals. He
further averred that complainant should have invited his attention by filing the proper motion or by writing a
personal letter informing him of the non-transmittal of the records within three months from the date of his
order of transmittal.

Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency, neglect and delay.

Held: GUILTY. A judge cannot hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. He should be the master of
his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects.

The non-transmission of the records by reason of inefficiency of the staff cannot exonerate respondent judge
from administrative liability. As administrative officer of the court, a judge is expected to keep a watchful eye
on the level of performance and conduct of the court personnel under his immediate supervision who are
primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice as required by Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Certainly, a delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellate court, where only a
period of 30 days is required, is inexcusable.