Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer (respondent), is charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr.

(complainant)
of violation Rules 1.01,1 6.02,2 and 7.033 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The complaint dealt with mainly on the issue that respondent allegedly opposes the application of his
wife (Susan) for a building permit for the construction of their commercial building. One of the reasons
stated by the complainant was that his wife was not in favor of Imelda’s relationship (first cousin of
Susan) with respondent who is a married man. And the other reason is that respondent was not
authorized to represent his neighbors in opposing the construction of his building.

IBP CBD dismissed the complaint. Thus, a petition for review was filed by complainant.

Complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a second marriage with
Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized
on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting.

Complainant further maintains that respondent used his influence as the Municipal Legal Officer of
Meycauayan to oppose his wife’s application for building permit, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

And for engaging in the practice of law while serving as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan,
complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 7.03.

Whether or not the complainant violated Rule 1.01, Rule 6.02 and 7.03 of the CPR

Court dismissed the charges of violating Rules 6.02 and 7.03. complaint failed to prove that
respondent used his position as Municipal Legal Officer to advance his own personal interest against
complainant and his wife.

No clear, convincing and strong evidence to warrant the disbarment or suspension of respondent. An
attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until
the contrary is proved

Respecting complainant’s charge that respondent engaged in an unauthorized private practice of law
while he was the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, a position coterminous to that of the
appointing authority, suffice it to state that respondent proffered proof that his private practice is not
prohibited.

It is, however, with respect to respondent’s admitted contracting of a second marriage while his first
marriage is still subsisting that this Court finds respondent liable, for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as
opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes "conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community." Gross immoral conduct
on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree.

Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989, when the Family Code of the Philippines
had already taken effect. He invokes good faith, however, he claims that the applicable provision at
the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.
As early as 1957, this Court has frowned on the act of contracting a second marriage while the first
marriage was still in place as being contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.

In another vein, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education
programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of
law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

Respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988
as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines
together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. He is WARNED
that a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.

complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision,
Inc. had requested the respondent Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron, Register of Deeds to register some
163 deeds of sale with assignment (in favor of the GSIS) of lots of the V & G mortgaged to GSIS by the
lot buyers. There was no action from the respondent.

Another request was made but still no action except to require V & G to submit proof of real estate tax
payment and to clarify certain details about the transactions.

Although V & G complied with the desired requirements, respondent Renomeron suspended the
registration of the documents pending compliance by V & G with a certain "special arrangement"
between them, which was that V & G should provide him with a weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban
to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip

Because of V & G's failure to give him pocket money in addition to plane fare, respondent imposed
additional registration requirements.

On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied registration of the transfer of 163 certificates of title to
the GSIS on the uniform ground that the deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to
parties and subject matter.

respondent elevated the matter to NLTDRA and ruled that the questioned documents were registrable.

After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez found respondent guilty of grave misconduct

Secretary Ordoñez recommended to President Corazon C. Aquino that Renomeron be dismissed from
the service, with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in the government service, effective immediately.

Less than two weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes
also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a disbarment complaint against said respondent.
The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may
also be disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a public official.

yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his
obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks (Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
requires public officials and employees to process documents and papers expeditiously and prohibits
them from directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in
the course of any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. The Code of
Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct or delay any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest"

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility.)

This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable, and reliable" may practice the
profession of law for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in the practice of his
calling"

The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have
demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law. He should therefore be
disbarred.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron be disbarred from the practice
of law in the Philippines, and that his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys