Cases for Canon 9

Case 1
A.C. No. 4545 February 5, 2014
CARLITO ANG, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review under Rule 139-B, Section 12(c) of the Rules of Court assailing
Resolution Nos. XVII-2005-1411 and XVIII-2008-6982 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Board of Governors found respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana
administratively liable and imposed on him the penalty of suspension for one year from the practice of
law and the revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as notary
public for two years.
The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint3 filed by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent.
Ang alleged that on May 31, 1991, he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely
Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and
Partition4 involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B which had an area of 6,258 square meters and was covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-22409)-6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters
designated as Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon.5 However, when he
tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT No. (T-22409)-6433 had already been
cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs6 had been issued in the names of William Magpayo, Antonio
Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero.
Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent had a direct participation in the
commission of forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who prepared and notarized the
Affidavit of Loss7 and Deed of Absolute Sale8 that led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang
pointed out that the Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on
April 17, 1989, was antedated and Candelaria Magpayos signature was forged as clearly shown by the
Certification9 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu.
Further, the certified true copy of page 37, Book No. XII, Series of 1989 of respondents Notarial Report
indubitably showed that Doc. No. 181 did not refer to the Deed of Absolute Sale, but to an affidavit.10
As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on April 29,
1994, it could not have been executed by her as she Died11 three years prior to the execution of the
said affidavit of loss.
Ang further alleged that on September 22, 1995, respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of
William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D.
Montero, and pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney in his favor, executed a Deed of Sale12 selling
Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4 to Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. on October 10, 1995. Ang complained that the sale
was made even though a civil case involving the said parcel of land was pending before the RTC of
Mandaue City, Cebu.13
In his Comment,14 respondent denied any wrongdoing and argued that Ang is merely using the present
administrative complaint as a tool to force the defendants in a pending civil case and their counsel,
herein respondent, to accede to his wishes. Respondent averred that Ang had filed Civil Case No. Man-
2202 before Branch 55 of the Mandaue City RTC. He anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration
of Heirs and Partition and sought to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject
parcel of land. During the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. Man-2202, Ang admitted that he is not
an heir of the late Candelaria Magpayo but insisted on his claim for a share of the lot because he is
allegedly the son of the late Isaias Ang, the common-law husband of Candelaria Magpayo. Because of his
admission, the notice of lis pendens annotated in the four certificates of title of the land in question
were ordered cancelled and the land effectively became available for disposition. Ang sought
reconsideration of the order, but a compromise was reached that only one TCT (TCT No. 34266) will be
annotated with a notice of lis pendens. Respondent surmised that these developments in Civil Case No.
Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to the filing of the present administrative
complaint. Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for being devoid of any factual or legal
basis, or in the alternative, holding resolution of the instant case in abeyance pending resolution of Civil
Case No. Man-2202 allegedly because the issues in the present administrative case are similar to the
issues or subject matters involved in said civil case.
Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, to whom the case
was referred for investigation, report and recommendation, submitted her Report and
Recommendation15 finding respondent administratively liable. She recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for three months. She held that respondent committed an unethical
act when he allowed himself to be an instrument in the disposal of the subject property through a deed
of sale executed between him as attorney-in-fact of his client and Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his
knowledge that said property is the subject of a pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City,
Cebu. The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that respondent "delegated the notarial
functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his signature." This,
according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the forged signatures of the parties in
the questioned documentas well as the erroneous entry in his notarial register."16 Nonetheless, the
Investigating Commissioner merely reminded respondent to be more cautious in the performance of his
duties as regards his infraction of his notarial duties. She held, Respondent should have been more
cautious in his duty as notary public which requires that the party subscribing to the authenticity of the
document should personally appear and sign the same before respondents actual presence. As such
notary public respondent should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule 9.0117 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.18
On November 12, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution No. XVII-2005-141,19
adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modifying the recommended penalty.
Instead of suspension for three months, the Board recommended the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for one year and revocation of respondents notarial commission and disqualification
from reappointment as notary public for two years.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,20 arguing that it was neither illegal nor unethical for a
lawyer to accept appointment as attorney-in-fact of a client to sell a property involved in a pending
litigation and to act as such. He further contended that granting that his act was unethical, the modified
penalty was evidently too harsh and extremely excessive considering that the act complained of was not
unlawful and done without malice.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. XVIII-2008-69821 denying
respondents motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution No. XVII-2005-141. Hence, this
petition for review.
Respondent reiterates that being commissioned by his own clients to sell a portion of a parcel of land,
part of which is involved in litigation, is not per se illegal or unethical. According to him, his clients got
his help to sell part of the land and because they were residing in different provinces, they executed a
Special Power of Attorney in his favor.22
We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent administratively liable.
After reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds that respondent did not act unethically when he
sold the property in dispute as the sellers attorney-in-fact because there was no more notice of lis
pendens annotated on the particular lot sold. Likewise, the Court finds no sufficient evidence to show
that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989 was antedated.
However, the Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he
failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss
which Candelaria allegedly executed on April 29, 1994. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise
known as the Notarial Law, explicitly provides:
Sec. 1. x x x
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The
notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the party acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any
other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.23 In the case at bar,
the jurat of the Affidavit of Loss stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on
April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26, 1991. Hence, it
is clear that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law. Indeed, respondent averred in his
position paper before the IBP that he did not in fact know Candelaria personally before, during and after
the notarization24 thus admitting that Candelaria was not present when he notarized the documents.
Time and again, we have held that notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine.25 Thus, in
Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos,26 the Court emphasized the significance of the act of notarization, to wit:
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document
into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed
by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
For this reason notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined. Hence a notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who xecuted and personally appeared before
him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to
enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the partys free act and deed.
A notary publics function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his powers and
duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.27 It devolves upon
respondent to act with due care and diligence in stamping fiat on the questioned documents.
Respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted in undermining the integrity of a
notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Hence, he should be liable for his infraction,
not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest.
Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat
is sacrosanct.1wphi1 Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon respondent and failing therein,
he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion.28 As the Court
has held in Flores v. Chua,29
Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his
solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. The Code of
Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." Respondent averred in his
position paper that it had been his consistent practice to course through clerical staff documents to be
notarized. Upon referral, said clerical staff investigates whether the documents are complete as to the
fundamental requirements and inquires as to the identity of the individual signatories thereto. If
everything is in order, they ask the parties to sign the documents and forward them to him and he again
inquires about the identities of the parties before affixing his notarial signature.30 It is also his clerical
staff who records entries in his notarial report. As aforesaid, respondent is mandated to observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary and to ascertain that
the persons who signed the documents are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. In merely relying on
his clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents brought to him for notarization, limiting
his participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of the persons
appearing before him, and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for
misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and suspension
from the practice of law for one year are in order.31
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Joseph Gupana is found administratively liable for misconduct and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. Further, his notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED
and he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two years, with a stem
warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and all courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the
personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice

Case 2

FIRST DIVISION
ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, Adm. Case No. 6290
Complainant,
Present:
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,
- versus - PANGANIBAN,
SANTIAGO,
CARPIO, and
AZCUNA, JJ.
ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
July 14, 2004
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
RESOLUTION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 30 May 2000, complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former
employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit,
grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.

On deceit, the complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely representing herself to
be married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and subsisting marriage with another woman.
However, through spurious means, the respondent and Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., were able to obtain a
false marriage contract,1[1] which states that they were married on 10 February 1980 in Manila.
Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila2[2] and the National Statistics Office (NSO)3[3] prove that
no record of marriage exists between them. The false date and place of marriage between the two are
stated in the birth certificates of their two children, Donnabel Tenorio4[4] and Felicisimo Tenorio III.5[5]
But in the birth certificates of their two other children, Oliver Tenorio6[6] and John Cedric Tenorio,7[7]
another date and place of marriage are indicated, namely, 12 February 1980 in Malaybalay, Bukidnon.

As to grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent caused the
dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to Makati City Councilor Divina Alora
Jacome. The respondent would often openly and sarcastically declare to the complainant and her co-
employees the alleged immorality of Councilor Jacome.

On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the respondent
(1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar;
(2) converted her clients money to her own use and benefit, which led to the filing of an estafa case
against her; and (3) threatened the complainant and her family on 24 January 2000 with the statement
Isang bala ka lang to deter them from divulging respondents illegal activities and transactions.

In her answer, the respondent denied all the allegations against her. As to the charge of deceit,
she declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. They were married on 12 February
1980 as shown by their Certificate of Marriage, Registry No. 2000-9108 of the Civil Registry of Quezon
City.8[8] Her husband has no prior and subsisting marriage with another woman.

As to the charge of grossly immoral conduct, the respondent denied that she caused the
dissemination of a libelous and defamatory affidavit against Councilor Jacome. On the contrary, it was
Councilor Jacome who caused the execution of said document. Additionally, the complainant and her
cohorts are the rumormongers who went around the city of Makati on the pretext of conducting a
survey but did so to besmirch respondents good name and reputation.

The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office was likewise denied by the
respondent. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is registered with the Department of Trade
and Industry as a single proprietorship, as shown by its Certificate of Registration of Business Name.9[9]
Hence, she has no partners in her law office. As to the estafa case, the same had already been dropped
pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996 issued by Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon

[1] Rollo, 19.
[2] Id., 9.
[3] Id., 10.
[4] Id., 5.
[5] Id., 6.
[6] Id., 7.
[7] Id., 8.
[8] Id., 36.
[9] Rollo, 37.
City.10[10] The respondent likewise denied that she threatened the complainant with the words Isang
bala ka lang on 24 January 2000.

Further, the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the complainant to
get even with her. She terminated complainants employment after receiving numerous complaints
that the complainant extorted money from different people with the promise of processing their
passports and marriages to foreigners, but she reneged on her promise. Likewise, this disbarment
complaint is politically motivated: some politicians offered to re-hire the complainant and her cohorts
should they initiate this complaint, which they did and for which they were re-hired. The respondent
also flaunted the fact that she had received numerous awards and citations for civic works and
exemplary service to the community. She then prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment case for
being baseless.

The IBP referred this case to Investigating Commissioner Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico.

During the hearing on 30 August 2000, the parties agreed that the complainant would submit a
Reply to respondents Answer, while the respondent would submit a Rejoinder to the Reply. The parties
also agreed that the Complaint, Answer, and the attached affidavits would constitute as the respective
direct testimonies of the parties and the affiants.11[11]

In her Reply, the complainant bolstered her claim that the respondent cooperated in the illegal
practice of law by her husband by submitting (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office12[12]
where the name of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication
Radio Group identification card13[13] signed by the respondent as Chairperson where her husband is
identified as Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr. She added that respondents husband even appeared in
court hearings.

In her Rejoinder, respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with her
husband nor allowed her husband to appear in court on her behalf. If there was an instance that her
husband appeared in court, he did so as a representative of her law firm. The letterhead submitted by
the complainant was a false reproduction to show that her husband is one of her law partners. But
upon cross-examination, when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her
signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A.
Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners because they have investments in her
law office.14[14]

The respondent further declared that she married Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., on 12 February 1980
in Quezon City, but when she later discovered that their marriage contract was not registered she
applied for late registration on 5 April 2000. She then presented as evidence a certified copy of the
marriage contract issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General and authenticated by the NSO. The

[10] Id., 38.
[11] Rollo, 130.
[12] Id., 104.
[13] Id., 106.
[14] TSN, 30 October 2000, 1-66.
erroneous entries in the birth certificates of her children as to the place and date of her marriage were
merely an oversight.15[15]

Sometime after the parties submitted their respective Offer of Evidence and Memoranda, the
complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 13 November 2002 after allegedly realizing that
this disbarment complaint arose out of a misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is no
longer interested in pursuing the case. This motion was not acted upon by the IBP.

In her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2003, IBP Commissioner on Bar
Discipline Milagros V. San Juan found that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges of deceit
and grossly immoral conduct. However, she found the respondent guilty of the charge of cooperating in
the illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility based on the following evidence: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
Office, which lists Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., as a senior partner; (2) the Sagip Communication Radio
Group identification card of Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., signed by respondent as Chairperson; (3)
and the Order dated 18 June 1997 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 20729
20734, wherein Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., entered his appearance as counsel and even moved for the
provisional dismissal of the cases for failure of the private complainants to appear and for lack of
interest to prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San Juan recommended that the respondent
be reprimanded.

In its Resolution No. XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner San Juan. The
modification consisted in increasing the penalty from reprimand to suspension from the practice of law
for six months with a warning that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.

We agree with the findings and conclusion of Commissioner San Juan as approved and adopted
with modification by the Board of Governors of the IBP.

At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw
Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,16[16] we declared:

The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by
complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or
disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge
of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on
the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is
not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent
lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford
no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice
from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is
called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's

[15] TSN, 30 October 2000, 1-66.
[16] Adm. Case No. 2884, 349 Phil. 7, 15-16 (1998).
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome
except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if
the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred
despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.

Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment case should proceed
accordingly.

The IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and grossly immoral conduct were not
substantiated. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving his case by
convincing evidence.17[17] With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the charge of
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the respondent is not yet convicted thereof. In Gerona
vs. Datingaling,18[18] we held that when the criminal prosecution based on the same act charged is still
pending in court, any administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act must await the outcome
of the criminal case to avoid contradictory findings.

We, however, affirm the IBPs finding that the respondent is guilty of assisting in the
unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as
a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read as follows:

Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar
in good standing.

The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as
a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding ones self
out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the
general practice of law.19[19] Such acts constitute unauthorized practice of law.

In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself out as one. His wife,
the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the unauthorized practice of the legal profession.

At the hearing, the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office listed
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan, and Maricris D. Battung as senior partners. She
admitted that the first two are not lawyers but paralegals. They are listed in the letterhead of her law
office as senior partners because they have investments in her law office.20[20] That is a blatant
misrepresentation.

[17] Adarne v. Aldaba, Adm. Case No. 801, 27 June 1978, 83 SCRA 734.
[18] Adm. Case No. 4801, 27 February 2003, 398 SCRA 148.
[19] See RUBEN E. AGPALO, THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAWYERS, 75 (1
st
ed. 1991)
(hereafter AGPALO).
[20] TSN, 30 October 2000, 52.

The Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card is another proof that the respondent
assisted Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in misrepresenting to the public that he is a lawyer. Notably, the
identification card stating that he is Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., bears the signature of the respondent
as Chairperson of the Group.

The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of
law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to
those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the
lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client,
and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to
the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained.
Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his
name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal
or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law.21[21]

WHEREFORE, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be attached to respondent Cristal-Tenorios record as attorney in
this Court and furnished to the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice

Case 3
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 1261 December 29, 1983
TAN TEK BENG, complainant,
vs.
TIMOTEO A. DAVID, respondent.

D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David
(admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the
Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the attorneys fees received by David from the clients supplied by
Tan Tek Beng. Their agreement reads:

[21] AGPALO, 69, 78.
December 3, 1970
Mr. Tan Tek Beng
Manila
Dear Mr. Tan:
In compliance with your request, I am now putting into writing our agreement which must be followed
in connection with the accounts that you will entrust to me for collection. Our terms and conditions shall
be as follows:
1. On all commission or attorneys fees that we shall receive from our clients by virtue of the
collection that we shall be able to effect on their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise you are
entitled to commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial from our said clients or in any
criminal cases where they are involved.
2. I shall not deal directly with our clients without your consent.
3. You shall take care of collecting our fees as well as advances for expenses for the cases referred to
us by our clients and careful in safeguarding our interest.
4. It is understood that legal expenses that we shall recover from the debtors shall be turned over to
our clients. Other clients who directly or indirectly have been approached or related (sic) to you as a
result of your labor are your clients.
I hereby pledge in the name of God, our Heavenly Father, that I will be sincere, honest and fair with you
in connection with our transactions with our clients. Likewise you must be sincere, honest and fair with
me.

Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) Illegible
TIMOTEO A. DAVID
P.S.
I will be responsible for all documents entrusted me by our clients.
(Sgd.) Initial
CONFORME to the above and likewise will reciprocate my sincerity to Atty. David as stated in the last
paragraph of this letter.
(Sgd.) Tan Tek Beng
MR. TAN TEK BENG
The foregoing was a reiteration of an agreement dated August 5, 1969. Note that in said agreement
lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission
agent but he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were mutual accusations
of doublecross. For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to
Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this
Court. He did not file any civil action to enforce the agreement.
In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek
Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier. When Jacinto became ill
and the costs of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest
some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused.
This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings
were scheduled from 1974 to 1981. It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts
but that did not materialize because the scheduled hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of
Tan Tek Beng and his counsel.
On September 16, 1977 Tan Tek Beng died at the Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa, Caloocan
City but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor Generals
Office was informed of that fact. A report on this case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the
Solicitor General to this Court.
We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or
dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term
malpractice (Act No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so
would be unprofessional (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme vs.
Bualan, 58 Phil. 422; Arce vs. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569). The commercialization of law
practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association:
34. Division of Fees. No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based
upon a division of service or responsibility.
35. Intermediaries. The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any
law agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyers
responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the
performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyers relation to his client
should be personal, and the responsibility should be direct to the client. . . .
38. Compensation, Commissions and Rebates. A lawyer should accept no compensation,
commissions, rebates or other advantages from others without the knowledge and consent of his client
after full disclosure. (Appendix, Malcolm, Legal Ethics).
We censure lawyer David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We
discountenance his conduct, not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal
ethics) but because David should have known better.
Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession
or which is unbecoming a member of that profession (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743).
WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. A copy of this decision should
be attached to his record in the Bar Confidants office.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Makasiar (Chairman), J., took no part.

Case 4
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Engr. Gilbert
Tumbokon against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct
constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
In his Complaint,
1
complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later
reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable and
Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin
Yap (Civil Case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial Court of Aklan). Their agreement was reflected in a
letter
2
dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission
notwithstanding receipt of attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about P 40 million.
Instead, he was informed through a letter
3
dated July 16, 1997 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same
after respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the
payment of his commission
4
which respondent ignored.
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of
his profession for having abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children, and
cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children. He also accused respondent of
engaging in money-lending business
5
without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on a 25% contingent fee basis,
and advanced all the expenses. He disputed the August 11, 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed
that Sps. Yap assumed to pay complainant's commission which he clarified in his July 16, 1997 letter. He,
thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and for the corresponding sanction against complainant's
counsel, Atty. Florencio B. Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint.
6

In the Resolution
7
dated February 16, 2004, the Court resolved to refer this administrative case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report and
Recommendation
8
dated October 10, 2008, the Investigating IBP Commissioner recommended that
respondent be suspended for one (1) year from the active practice of law, for violation of the Lawyer's
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code). The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the same in its Resolution No.
XIX-2010-453
9
dated August 28, 2010. Respondent moved for reconsideration
10
which was denied in
Resolution No. XIX-2011-141 dated October 28, 2011.
After due consideration, We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess
and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing,
and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code.
11
Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for
any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private
capacity.
In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated
Rule 9.02,
12
Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in
the case at bar.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with
his mistress with whom he begot four children notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his
moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of
the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as
it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
13
Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the IBP's finding
that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath
14
and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
However, We find the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently
established. A "business" requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to
whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent basis.
15
The lending of money to a single person
without showing that such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be
construed asindicia that respondent is engaged in the business of lending.
Nonetheless, while We rule that respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, We are minded that
the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the
bar,
16
or the misconduct borders on the criminal, or committed under scandalous circumstance,
17
which
do not obtain here. Considering the circumstances of the case, We deem it appropriate that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO is found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyers
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the same
Code and SUSPENDED from the active practice of law ONE (1) YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate justice

Footnotes
*
Designated member in lieu of Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Special Order No. 1282 dated August 1, 2012.
1
Rollo, pp. 23-27.
2
Id. at 8.
3
Id. at 14.
4
Letter dated October 25, 2002, id. at 38.
5
Evidenced by the Affidavit of Jose E. Autajay dated April 19, 2003, id. at 41.
6
Comment, id.at 44-51.
7
Id. at 90.
8
IBP rollo, vol. IV, pp. 2-10.
9
Id. at 1.
10
Id. at 11-12.
11
Molina v. Magat,A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012.
12
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads in full:
"Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide orstipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed
to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death, money
shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based
in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement."
13
Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1, 16.
14
I ______ having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I
recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
15
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html.
16
Tan v. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, October 5, 2011;Conlu v. Aredonia, Jr., A.C. No. 4955, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA
367; Garrido vs. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 508.
17
Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, March 20, 2012.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation