1. Espinosa v.Atty. Omana, A.C. No.

9081, October 12, 2011

FACTS:
On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omanas legal
advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a
document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and Marantal started implanting
the conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and
took possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his
fellow employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana
was not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the
IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to
see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal.
Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and
managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged
her signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. W/N
the Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid.
HELD: SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the
disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaa did in this
case.
2. ANITA C. PENA v. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO
A.C. No. 4191
FACTS:
This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno for acts
violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. Complainant , the
owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 7-C, Psd-74200, located in Bayanbayanan, Parang,
Marikina, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244, Register of
Deeds of Marikina, with an eight-door apartment constructed thereon. The complainant alleged
that she gave respondent her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 61244 to enable respondent to
use the same as collateral in constructing a townhouse, and that the title was in the
safekeeping of respondent for seven years. Despite repeated demands by complainant,
respondent refused to return it. Yet, respondent assured complainant that she was still the
owner. Later, complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property in
January 1994, eight years after she gave the title to respondent. Respondent argued that it was
unfathomable that after eight years, complainant never took any step to verify the status of her
loan application nor visited her property, if it is untrue that she sold the said property.
Complainant explained that respondent kept on assuring her that the bank required the
submission of her title in order to process her loan application. In the course of investigation of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled
Estrella B. Kraus to sell complainant's land to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.17 This was
evidenced by Entry No. 150322 in TCT No. 61244 with respect to the sale of the property
described therein to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. for P200,000.00. Respondent alleged that
complainant signed the Deed of Sale in her presence inside her office. However, respondent
would neither directly confirm nor deny if, indeed, she notarized the instrument in her direct
examination, but on cross-examination, she stated that she was not denying that she was the
one who notarized the Deed of Sale. Estrella Kraus' affidavit supported respondent's defense.
Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence and
fealty to her office by attesting that the alleged party, Anita Pea, appeared before her and
signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person did not participate in the execution
thereof. Moreover, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries
pertaining to the deed of sale in her notarial register. Recommended that respondent be
disbarred from the practice of law and her name stricken-off the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately, and recommended that the notarial commission of respondent, if still existing, be
revoked, and that respondent be perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary
public.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent
violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by (a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Pea;
(b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the
subject property in his name; and (c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale.
HELD:
As a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following:
Canons:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law, pursuant to
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well as for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and the notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. Paterno, if still existing, is
perpetually REVOKED.
3. Rose Bunagan-Bansig vs. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera A.C. No. 5581 January 14, 2014
Facts:
In complaint of Banasig, she narrated that, on May 8, 1997, respondent and
Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox
copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila.
Bansig is the sister of Gracemarie R. Bunagan, legal wife of respondent. However,
notwithstanding respondent's marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another
marriage on January 8, 1998 with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a
certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Registration Officer of San
Juan, Manila. Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still
valid and in full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that
the first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority. Bansig
alleged that respondents act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar,
which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. In a Resolution dated
February 18, 2002, the Court resolved to require respondent to file a comment on the instant
complaint.
Respondent failed to appear before the mandatory conference and hearings set by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), despite several
notices
Issue:
1. Whether the respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court due to the act of
committing bigamy. Violating the code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and
Rule 7.03 His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting
constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
2. The failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices.
Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court,
which is under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Held:
The certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates, other than being admissible in
evidence, clearly indicate that respondent contracted the second marriage while the first

marriage is subsisting. By itself, the certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates would
already have been sufficient to establish the existence of two marriages entered into by
respondent. The certified xerox copies should be accorded the full faith and credence given to
public documents. For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates
bearing the name of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he
committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.
And respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme
Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents conduct indicates a
high degree of irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Courts Resolution is "not to be
construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or
selectively." Respondents obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts orders "not only betrays
a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful
orders which is only too deserving of reproof."
In View of all foregoing , the judge finds respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, guilty
of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
4. Paciata Caalim Verzonilla
Attorney; misconduct. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument
that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other
taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful
statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an
amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in
depriving theGovernment of the right to collect the correct taxes due. Not only did respondent
assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed
lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By
notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its
face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondents
actions violated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent
sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent is meted the penalty
of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of two
years. Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October 11,
2011.
12. LEDESMA V CLIMACO
FACTS:

Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election

Registrar of Cadiz, Negros Occidental by COMELEC

Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar
would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent
him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de officio of the
accused.

ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed

HELD: No.
RATIO:
1. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de
oficio. Then, even assuming that he continues his position, his volume of work is likely
to be very much less than present. There is no excuse for him to shirk from his
obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill.
2. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to know that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as
counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a profession and not a mere
trade). Requires counsel of repute and eminence.
3. In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the accused be
given an opportunity to be heard by counsel.
4. The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has
already been postponed for 8 times)

15. ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON vs. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO

A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012
FACTS:
Atty. Mariano Pefianco (respondent) undertook to give Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon
(complainant) 20% commission which the respondent would receive in representing Spouses
Amable and Rosalinda Yap, whom the complainant referred. They had a written agreement
dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent failed to pay complainant the agreed commission.
Instead respondent was informed that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after he agreed to
reduce his attorneys fee from 25% to 17%. Complainant demanded the payment of his
commission but the respondent ignored. Complainant also alleged that Atty. Pefianco has not
lived up to the high moral standards required of his profession. And he also accused
respondent of engaging in a money-lending business without required authorization. In
respondents defense, he claimed that the written agreement dated August 11, 1995 was forged
and that Sps. Yap assumed to pay complainants commission. Respondent filed Motion to
Dismiss. The case was referred tp Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation. Respondent was recommended for one (1) year suspension from
the practice of law for violation of Lawyers Oath Rule 1.01, Canon1; Rule 7.01, Canon 7 and

Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent filed Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Mariano Pefianco be suspended from the practice of law.
RULING:
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.
Respondent did not deny abandoning his legal family to cohabit with his mistress whom
he begot four (4) children. 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.13Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the IBP's
finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath14 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."
However, the court finds the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have
been sufficiently established.
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