WEEK 12 IBP – found Atty.

Pizarro guilty in violating

lawyer’s oath – do not falsehood and
122. PO CHAM v. ATTY. PIZARRO
misrepresentations, and recommended his
Facts: suspension from practice of law for 3
months.
Cham filed an administrative case against Atty.
Pizarro for commission of falsehood and Issue: WON Atty. Pizarro is administratively
misrepresentations in violation of lawyer’s oath. liable.

Cham alleged that Emelita, Elenita and Mario who Ruling:

was then Assessor of Morong Bataan offered him
YES, SC suspended Atty. Pizarro from
a parcel of land situated in Morong Bataan. He
practice of law for 1 year, considering that 3
expressed his interest to buy the said property,
months suspension meted by IBP is not
with that Emelita arranged the meeting between
commensurate to the gravity of the wrong
him and Atty. Pizarro. Atty. Pizarro categorically
committed by him.
represented to him that the said property was
alienable and disposable, he even presented Atty. Pizarro must be faulted for fraudulently
certain documents such as real property tax inducing Cham to purchase the subject property
order of payment, deed of absolute sale which is an inalienable property. He violated
(executed by former occupant of the said Canon 1 of CPR which provides that a lawyer
property in favor of Banzon, Zabala and him, and must obey the Constitution and promote respect
SPA (executed by Banzon and Zabala) for the law, and Rule 1.01 which enjoins a lawyer
authorizing him to sell the said property. from engaging in unlawful dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct – conduct is not limited to
Then he decided to buy the said property, first he
performance of professional duties.
paid P10K as earnest money, then later on, he
issued 2 checks as payment for purchase price The Court may assume jurisdiction to discipline
with total amount of P3,362,533. He one of its officers for misconduct although it was
subsequently took possession of the subject done in his private capacity, because the Court
property, he even installed barbed wire fence, requires its officers to possess a good moral
but he was approached by forest guard informing character.
him that he could not fenced the property
In this case, as found by IBP, Atty. Pizarro should
because it was part of Bataan National Park.
know that the property is inalienable considering
He discovered that the said property was not that he is resident of Bataan and he practice his
susceptible of private ownership, as confirmed by profession herein. He further failed to
CENRO, with the certification it issued. He even substantiate his claim that he has irrevocable
obtained a letter-directive from PENRO to rights and interest over the property, the
Municipal Assessor, informing the latter that documents he presented are not sufficient - Deed
some forest occupants obtained tax declaration of Absolute Sale executed by former occupant to
and used such for illegal selling of right of them, which was executed a month before the
possession of property within the Bataan National execution of Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
Park. Cham; and the tax declaration.

He demanded Atty. Pizarro to return the The Court further held that:
purchase price but the latter refused to do so,
- Cham is not entirely blameless, however,
hence, this petition.
in disbarment case, it is immaterial that
Atty. Pizarro denied that he represented the said the complainant is not blameless or is
property as alienable and disposable and he in pari delicto, considering that this
claimed that Cham being engaged in speculation proceeding is not to grant relief to the
of property, knew exactly the nature and complainant but to protect the public and
character of the property he purchased. That the courts from unworthy members of the
Cham bought the property hoping that the said bar.
property will eventually be declared as alienable - The status of estafa case filed against
and disposable. Atty. Pizarro is also immaterial in this
case, his conviction or acquittal in
 criminal case is not essential in the misconduct is so gross as to show him unfit and
disbarment proceeding, because unworthy of the privilege, the Court may acquire
disbarment proceeding is distinct and may jurisdiction and validly suspend or remove him
proceed independently of criminal cases, from the office of attorney.
so the Court need not to wait the final
The “conduct” used in Rule 1.01 is not limited to
resolution of such criminal case.
conduct exhibited in connection with lawyers
performance in his professional duties.
123. SOCORRO CO vs. ATTY. BERNARDINO In this case, Atty. Bernardino’s procurement of
personal loans through insinuations of power as
Facts:
an influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs,
Co filed administrative complaint against Atty. issuance of series of bad checks and taking
Bernardino, charging him of unprofessional and advantage of his position in the government
unethical conduct indicating moral deficiency and office, constitute gross violation of Rule 1.01 of
unfitness to stay in the Bar. CPR, though this are not related to his
professional duties as a lawyer, this puts a flaw
She alleged that he met Atty. Bernardino when with his moral character. In addition, Atty.
she was following up her documents for her Bernardino’s employment of deceit and
shipment at Bureau of Customs, that Atty. misrepresentations as well as his cavalier attitude
Bernardino approached her, introducing himself towards incurring debts without the least
as someone who was holding position in Bureau intention of repaying them is reprehensible, this
of Customs, and that he can help her with regard is a disturbing behavior of a lawyer, which cannot
her dealings with Bureau of Customs. be tolerated by the Court.
They became friends, and later on, Atty.
Bernardino borrowed money from Co, amounting
to 120K, and he even issued checks to ensure his 124. LAO vs. ATTY. MEDEL
payment. Half of the checks were dishonored due
Facts:
to insufficient funds, but he promised that he will
pay her, if she will again lend him additional Lao filed an administrative case against Atty.
amount. Again, to ensure payment, Atty. Medel for dishonesty, grave misconduct and
Bernardino handed her 3 copies of deed of chattel conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
mortgage and copies of deed of sale of his car,
but this was not consummated because Atty. Lao alleged that Atty. Medel owed him money
Bernardino sold the car to another. That Atty. and that the latter issued 4 checks but this were
Bernardino tried to evade his obligation with Co. dishonored by the bank, he further alleged that
Atty. Medel persistent in refusing to make good
Atty. Bernardino argued that he gave the checks with the 4 checks.
to Co by way of rediscounting and that his
obligations were fully paid when he delivered 5 Atty. Medel instead blame Lao for his failure to
cellular phones to her. settle his obligation because the latter reject all
his proposals to settle his debts. Atty. Lao even
IBP – recommended 6 months suspension from argued that the complaint did not constitute valid
practice of law. ground for disciplinary action because:
Issue: WON Atty. Bernardino should be - Sec. 27, Rule 138 of Rules of Court
disciplined for his conduct in his private dealings. categorically enumerated the grounds for
disbarment or suspension, and issuance of
Ruling:
worthless checks are not one of the
YES, SC suspended Atty. Bernardino from grounds, in addition, it is a mere violation
practice of law for 1 year. of BP 22 not punishable under RPC,
hence, it is not a crime involving moral
The general rule is that the Court may not turpitude; and
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline a - That if the Court will discipline him for
lawyer for his misconduct in his non-professional violation of BP 22, then Sec. 27, Rule 138
or private capacity, however, if a lawyer’s would be cruel and unjust.
Atty. Medel acknowledged his obligation and even to Atty. Calicdan. Atty. Calicdan the hearing
committed to pay Lao a total of P42K (P22K his officer, found Santos guilty for violating RA 6713
debt and P20K for attys. fees), however, during (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
hearing before IBP, he made no effort to comply Officials and Employees).
his undertaking to settle his indebtedness but
With that, Santos filed disbarment case against
instead he left despite the objection and warning
Atty. Calicdan, alleging several irregularities in
of his counsel and the Commissioner.
the course of hearing conducted by the latter in
IBP – found Atty. Medel guilty of violating his administrative case, such as:
lawyer’s oath and CPR, recommended his
- Partiality of Atty. Calicdan in favor of
suspension from practice of law for 2 years.
Biasura when she utter “you concentrate
Issue: WON Atty. Medel should be in proving your innocence”, while he was
administratively liable. being cross-examined;
- Falsifying of court records, when she in
Ruling:
collusion with the stenographer deleted in
YES, SC found Atty. Medel guilty of gross the transcript of what exactly transpired
misconduct and is suspended for 1 year during a hearing;
from practice of law. - And other.

Lawyers are instrument for administration of Atty. Calicdan denied the allegation: that when
justice, they are expected not only to maintain she uttered the said statement there was no
legal proficiency but also to maintain high partiality or bias to Biasura; there was no
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair falsification committed, the proposal of Santos to
dealing. set aside the hearing was made off-record, hence
it was not incorporated in the transcript.
In this case, the attitude of Atty. Medel in
incurring debts without any intention to pay them Since the disbarment case was filed before the
put his moral character in serious doubt. Lawyer CSC it was referred to Office of Ombudsman.
apart from his duties to society, to court, to the
Ombudsman – found that there was no
bar and to their clients, has the duty to promptly
falsification nor Atty. Calicdan liable for grave
pay their financial obligations.
misconduct, she acted without malice and
The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for criminal intent.
any professional or private misconduct that will
IBP -
show his lacking in moral character or unworthy
to continue as officers of court. Issue:

Furthermore, the issuance of worthless Ruling:

checks of Atty. Medel, as held by IBP and
126. Nakpil vs. Atty. Carlos Valdez
agreed upon by SC, constitute as moral
turpitude, and in violation also of Rule 1.01 127. Buted vs. Hernando
and Canon 1 of CPR.
128. Maturan vs. Gonzales

129. Pormento vs. Pontevedra

125. SANTOS v. ATTY. CACHO-CALICDAN, 
130. Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes
Facts:
131. Obusan vs. Obusan
Santos, Land Management officer of DENR, while
Atty. Calicdan, Graft Investigation officer II of the 132. Terre vs. Terre
Office of Ombudsman. 133. Santos vs. Tan
Santos filed a disbarment case against Atty. 134. EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR. v. ATTY.
Calicdan, this stemmed from criminal and LEO PALMA
administrative case filed by Biasura before the Admin Case No. 2474 ; September 15,2004
Ombudsman against Santos, which was assigned
Facts: Eduardo Cojuangco was a client of ACCRA Law offices, IBP Investigating Commissioner: Found Atty. Palma
and Atty. Palma was the lawyer assigned to handle GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and violation of his lawyer
Cojuangco’s cases. Due to Cojuangco’s growing business, he oath. Recommended Atty. Palmas’ SUSPENSION FROM
then decided to hire Atty. Palma as his personal counsel. PRACTICE OF LAW FOR 3 YEARS.
Atty. Palmas relationship with Cojuangco’s family IBP-BOG: SUSPENSION FOR 1 YEAR.
became intimate, where he traveled and dined with them Issue: WON Atty. Palma should be held administratively liable
abroad. Atty. Palmas also frequently went to their house and Held: Yes. He violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and found guilty of
tutored their 22 year old daughter Lisa. grossly immoral conduct and violated his oath as a lawyer.
Thereafter, Atty. Palma married Lisa in Hongkong DISBARRED!
without the knowledge of Eduardo and its family. On the next Atty. Palmas’ act constitutes grossly immoral
day, Atty. Palma then informed and assured Eduardo that conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
everything is legal. of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack
Eduardo then found out and shoked that Atty. Palma of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the
is a married man and already has 3 childrem. Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a
Eduardo upon investigation found that the Atty. sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
Palma courted Lisa during their tutoring sessions. Thus. contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice,
Eduardo sent his 2 sons to Hongkong in order to persuade decency and morality.
Lisa to go home to Manila and discuss the matter with their Here, Atty. Palma married Lisa while he has a
family. subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima. The
Eduardo, the found out that: Certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows
(a) on the date of the supposed marriage, Atty. Palma that he married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at Cardial’s
requested from his Eduardo’s office an airplane ticket to and Private Chapel, Cebu City. On the other hand, the Certificate
from Australia, with stop-over in Hong Kong; of Marriage from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages, Hong
(b) Atty. Palma misrepresented himself as "bachelor" before Kong, proves respondent’s subsequent marriage with Lisa on
the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa; July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at the time of
(c) Atty. Palma was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has respondent’s second marriage was confirmed on the witness
three children. stand by Atty. Victor P. Lazatin, Elizabeth’s classmate and
Eduardo then filed a complaint before the CFI Pasay family friend.
City, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the Marriage The circumstances here speak of a clear case of
between Atty. Palma and his daughter Lisa. CFI, declared the betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s
marriage as null and void ab initio. However, the First Division closeness to the complainant’s family as well as the latter’s
of the SC set aside such decision and ordered to remand the complete trust in him that made possible his intimate
case to the CFI for proper proceeding and determination. relationship with Lisa.
Eduardo then filed a complaint for disbarment Also, there was no prejudicial question here, even
against Atty. Palma alleging the grounds of “deceit, though the validity of Atty. Palmas’ marriage with Lisa has not
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath yet been determined by the court with finality, because the
as a lawyer, and grossly immoral conduct” subsequent judg,ent of annulment of marriage has no bearing
Atty. Palmas filed his motion to dismiss on the to the instant disbarment case- the latter being a sui generis
ground of Lack of cause of action. That he married Lisa with which is neither purely civil not purely criminal, but is rather
utmost sincerity and good faith. He also, filed an Urgent an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.
Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground that the final And, So long as the quantum of proof --- clear preponderance
outcome on the Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of of evidence --- in disciplinary proceedings against members of
Marriage, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment the bar is met, then liability attaches.
proceedings- DENIED.
SC then released an Order on December 1984,
enjoining the OSG from continuing the investigation of the 135. CARMELITA ZAGUIRRE v. ATTY.
disbarment proceedings. The case then referred to IBP CBD, CASTILLO
where its commission issued an order dated October 1998 for A.C. No. 4921 ; March 6, 2003
the parties to Manifest whether or not the parties are still Facts: Carmelita and Castillo were officemates at the NBI.
interested in prosecuting this case, considering the length of Then, Castillo courted Carmelita and promised to marry her
time that this disbarment case has remained pending. while representing that he was single.
Eduardo then manifested and confirmed his During their intimate relationship, Castillo was
continuing interest to prosecute his complaint for preparing for the bar exams which he passed. After Atty.
disbarment. Castillo was admitted to the bard, Carmelita then learned that
he was already married when his wife confronted Carmelita effort to mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of
on her office. his offense on the noble profession of law. Nevertheless, the
Atty. Castillo, the execute an affidavit admitting his Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances
relationship with Carmelita and recognizing the unborn child that indefinite suspension should be meted out than
she was carrying as his. And, when Carmelita gave birth to a disbarment. The suspension shall last until such time that
baby girl, Atty. Castillo then started to refuse recognizing the respondent is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the
child and giving her any form of support. Court, that he has instilled in himself a firm conviction of
Carmelita the filed a Petition for Disbarment on the maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every
ground of Gross Immoral Conduct. member of the profession.
Atty. Castillo contended that he never courted
Carmelita and what transpired between then was nothing but 136. IN RE DISBARMENT OF RODOLFO PAJO
a mutual lust and desire. That he never misrepresented (A.C. No. 2410 ; October 23, 1983)
himself as Carmelita knew beforehand that he is already Facts: Atty. Pajo and Clodualdo Origines (nephew of the
married. That the baby child was not his, as Carmelita was vendor) were charged with falsification of public documents
seeing other men during their affair. He further admitted his for executing a Deed of Sale of a parcel of land of Nestoria
act of signing the affidavit but he said that he only did such in Origines, who was already deceased for 8 years. (Said Deed
order to save her from embarrassment. of Sale was supposed to have executed by Nestoria who died
IBP CBD- recommends a penalty of indefinite suspension 8 yrs ago in favor of her nephew Clodualdo)
from the practice of law It was Atty. Pajo who prepared and notarized the
said falsified Deed of Sale. They were then eventually found
Issue: WON Atty. Castillo should be held administratively guilty- where Clodualdo was sentenced as a principal and
liable Atty. Pajo as an accomplice.
CA: The convition of CLodualdo was merely affirmed
Held: YES. Atty. Castillo was suspended indefinitely from the without any modification. On the other hand, Atty. Pajo was
practice of law. Violated Rule 1.01, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7. found guilty as co-principal through conspiracy, instead of as
The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place an accomplice, thereby increading his penalties.
while respondent was preparing to take the bar Atty. Pajo felt aggrieved, then filed a Petition for
examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to Review on Certiorari of the CA Decision before the Supreme
him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar Court=DENIED.
must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a Then, this Disbarment proceedings of Atty. Pajo. He
requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to was required to show cause why he should not be disbarred
membership of the bar.23 This qualification is not only a by reason of final judgment. (in the meantime he was
condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but suspended from the practice of law)
its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good But, Atty. Pajo has show no cause why he should not
standing in the profession;24 it is a continuing requirement to be disbarred by reason of final judgment. He, then filed a
the practice of law25 and therefore admission to the bar does Manifestation-Explanation why he should not be disbarred by
not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper reason of final judgement: 1) that he worked hard as a
complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral security guard to be lawyer; 2) He is a victim of
fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his circumstances, that during his 12 years of active law practice-
admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable he handled many cases in a good practice; 3) that he was
presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a innocent of the charge of falsification.
lawyer.
Here, Atty. Castillo repeatedly engaged in sexual Issue: WON Atty. Pajo should be disbarred.
congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses to
recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized Held: YES. DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, and his
and promised to support. Clearly therefore, respondent name was ordered stricken off the roll of attorneys.
violated the standards of morality required of the legal Here. Atty. Pajo’s disbarment follows as a
profession and should be disciplined accordingly. consequence of his conviction for his crime of falsification of
As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall public documents.
not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be In this disbarment case, we are no longer called upon to
given.28 Records show that from the time he took his oath in review the judgment of conviction which has now become
1997, he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives final. The review of the conviction no longer rests upon this
with his wife and children in Mindoro. As of now, the Court Court. The crime of falsification of public document is clearly
does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent's
contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore,
involves moral turpitude.
Atty. Pajo’s acts of taking advantage of his office as
attorney to prepare a deed of sale purportedly by one who
had been eight years dead amounted to deceit, malpractice,
and misconduct in office as a lawyer. Thus, this case is clearly
under the grounds given in Section 27, Rule 138.

137. Judge Larucon vs. Atty. Jacoba

138. Almendrez vs. Atty. Langit

139. Velez vs. De Vera

140.

141.

142.

143.