Cases:
. Lawyers Duty to the Public
(a) Canon 1
Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003
FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed
against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer
was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses.
At the beginning of the preliminary conference,
spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya
sought the services of the Public Attorneys
Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca
filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion
was denied. The judge then ordered all parties to
submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 days after the submission
of the last paper or upon expiration of the period
for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position
paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful
detainer was dismissed because those who filed
the case were not really parties-in-interest. The
case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit
anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision.
Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and
pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya
confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned
that he did not receive anything. Upon checking
with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a
copy of the decision. Hence this administrative
complaint.
ISSUE:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he
did not file any paper in the MCTC because it
would just be a repetition of the answer. Endaya
filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in
his complaint. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder.
Guess what, Oca once again failed to file
anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a
rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it
was no longer necessary. In the IBP investigation,
Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and
practically abandoned the spouses thereafter.
The facts show that Oca failed to employ every
legal and honorable means to advance the cause
of his client. For intentionally failing to submit the
pleadings required by the court, respondent
practically closed the door to the possibility of
putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot
just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer
continues to be a counsel of record until the
lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Ocas
story shows his appalling indifference to his
clients cause, deplorable lack of respect for the
courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer.
However Endaya misrepresented that the original
answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in
fact it was prepared by a lawyer. He also assured
Oca that he had strong evidence to support their
case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to
support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a
heavy caseload. Given these circumstances the
professional conduct of Oca does not warrant
disbarment.
Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC#
6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS:
In September 2000, the lawyer issued several
Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos
and Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing
debt. The checks bounced due to insufficient
funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the
criminal charges and promised to pay her debt
several times, but failed to pay the full amount,
even after a complaint for disbarment was filed
against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
***The issuance of checks which were later
dishonored for having been drawn against a
closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for
the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows
a lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render her unworthy of public
confidence. ***
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer,
regardless of whether or not the same were
issued in his professional capacity to a client,
calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256,
2/31/2004
FACTS:
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the
marriage contract between her and respondent
Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy
and concubinage against the latter and Villarin.
She also submitted a photocopy of the birth
certificate of a child of the respondent and also
stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in
Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file
their comment on the complaint within 10 days
but they failed to comply. Copies of the
resolution, complaint and its annexes were
returned to both respondents unserved with
notation moved, same as when served
personally. Complainant was required anew to
submit the correct, present address of
respondents under pain of dismissal of her
administrative complaint. She disclosed
respondents address at 12403 Develop Drive
Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
recommended that both respondents be
disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty.
Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint
against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was
returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it
appears that a copy of the resolution requiring
comment was never deemed served upon her
as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and
maintaining an illicit relationship with another
woman are grounds for disbarment.
HELD:
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty.
Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant,
carried on an illicit relationship with co-
respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence
was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a
subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact
remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as member of the bar. A
disbarment proceeding is warranted against a
lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another
woman who had borne him a child. We can do no
less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled
to another country to escape the consequences
of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the
practice of law while the complaint against Atty.
Villarin was referred back to the IBP.
Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC#
4762, 6/28/2004
FACTS:
Complainants husband sold a piece of land to
Respondent who issued 8 post-dated checks as
payment and which checks however
subsequently bounced prompting Complainant
and her husband to make repeated demands but
to no avail. Complainant alleged that
Respondents unlawful refusal and dilatory tactics
partly triggered the death of her husband, who
died disillusioned and embittered. Respondent
countered that, Complainant did not know the
real story, and that the non-payment of the
checks was justified by the unresolved problem of
right-of-way which Complainants husband
supposedly had guaranteed. He also alleged that
he was entitled to set-off what he owed for the
land acquisition against advances made by
Complainants husband and for cost incurred
when he defended Complainants son in a
criminal case.
RULING:
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued
eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without
regard to its deleterious effects to public interest
and public order. The issuance of worthless
checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts
the erring lawyers moral character in serious
doubt, though it is not related to his professional
duties as a member of the bar. He not only sets
himself liable for a serious criminal offense under
B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the CPR,
specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the
laws of the land and promote the respect for
law.***
Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for
Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline
(CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a.
Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's
oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January
2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiance Irene
Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a
lawyer and a sports caster, to him as her friend
who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom
he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed
that Irene had been receiving from respondent
cellphone calls, as well as messages some of
which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet
you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene
habitually went home very late at night or early
in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he
asked about her whereabouts, she replied that
she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan,
Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so,
complainant has seen Irene and respondent
together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which
Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the
master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing
the words "I Love You" on its face, which card
when unfolded contained a handwritten letter
dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to
Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth
to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in
the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies
having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship
with Irene, the truth of the matter being that
their relationship was low profile and known only
to the immediate members of their respective
families. He also said that his special relationship
with Irene is neither under scandalous
circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral
conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from
the practice of Law.
HELD:
YES. The case at bar involves a relationship
between a married lawyer and a married woman
who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the
affair was carried out discreetly.
***While it has been held in disbarment cases
that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it
is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital
vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-
marital relations are punishable under penal law,
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.***
Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392,
6/29/2010
FACTS: Complainant was Respondents secretary
(in 2002), later she became his lover and
common-law wife. Still later, Respondent brought
her to a mountainous part in Biliran where he left
her with the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines, a religious group which Respondent
headed. Thereafter, and upon Respondents
instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed
and injected Complainant with drugs. She
remained in captivity until her mother aided by
the Provincial Welfare Development and the
police, rescued her. Complainant sought
Respondents disbarment alleging as well that
Respondent contracted a bigamous marriage in
marrying Leny Azur despite the subsistence of a
prior marriage to Ma. Shirley Yunzal.
RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating
Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes) and Rule 7 (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) of the CPR; ***his name ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondents acts of converting his secretary
into a mistress, contracting two marriages with
Shirley and Leny are grossly immoral which no
civilized society in the world can countenance.
Complainants subsequent detention and torture
is gross misconduct which only a beast may be
able to do. Canon 1 of the CPR.***
Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494,
6/27/2008
FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit
from Greenville Realty and Development Corp.
represented by Complainant as its president and
general manager. Her total unpaid account
reached P71,1007.88. Despite repeated
demands, Respondent failed to pay her account
and even vacated the leased premises without
notifying Complainant.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month;
WARNED that repetition of same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely. ***Having
incurred just debts, Respondent had the moral
duty and legal responsibility to settle them when
they became due.***
Respondent left the apartment unit without
settling her unpaid obligations, and without the
complainants knowledge and consent. ***
Respondents abandonment of the leased
premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and
electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct
violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly Canon I*** (a lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal
processes) and Rule 1.01 (a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct).
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of
justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they
are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing,
the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial
and legal system is ensured.
Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for
the purchase of a piece of land. Instead of a deed
of sale, Respondent issued a temporary receipt
and a certificate of land occupancy assuring
Complainant that he could already use the lot.
Complainant, upon learning that the certificate
could not be registered with the Register of
Deeds, then confronted Respondent who
admitted that the real owner was a certain Rubio
and that the lot was still pending litigation.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law
practice for 2 years. Respondents credibility is
highly questionable he even issued a bogus
certificate of land occupancy to Complainant
whose only fault was that he did not know better.
To the unlettered, said certificate could have
easily passed off as a document evidencing title.
In fact, Complainant actually tried, but failed, to
register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the
Register of Deeds. Complainant readily parted
with P70T because of the false assurance
afforded by the sham certificate.
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct) of the CPR. Conduct, as used in the
Rule, is not confined to the performance of a
lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may be
disciplined for misconduct committed either in
his professional or private capacity. The test is
whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
Respondent acted in his private capacity,
misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to
Complainant, later refused to return his money.
As a final blow, he denied having any transaction
with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of
the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or
suspension of respondent from the practice of
law for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a
piece of property over which he has no right nor
interest, and that he refuses to return to them
the amount they have paid him for it.
In May 1999, complainants and respondent
entered into a Deed of Assignment, respondent
transferred, in favor of the complainants, his
rights and interests over a townhouse unit and
lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF
Homes, Quezon City.
Respondent received from complainants
P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of
Assignment. The balance was to be paid by
complainants in four equal quarterly installments
of P187,500.00 each. Thus, complainants issued
in favor of respondent four postdated checks in
the amount of P187,500.00 each. Respondent
was able to encash the first check dated August
17, 1999.2
Complainants subsequently received information
from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in
full the price of the townhouse at the time he
executed the Deed of Assignment.
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their
counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that
they were still willing to pay the balance of the
purchase price of the townhouse on the condition
that respondent work on Crown Asias execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that
respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Allegedly,
respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law..
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and
deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held: Yes,
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1)
deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct
in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does
not refer exclusively to the performance of a
lawyers professional duties. This Court has made
clear in a long line of cases7 that a lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor,
or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted
in his private capacity when he entered into a
contract with complainant Marili representing to
have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question. When he
failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of
his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid
that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer
property over which one has no legal right of
ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of
dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
concealed this lack of right from complainants.
He did not inform the complainants that he has
not yet paid in full the price of the subject
townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no
right to sell, transfer or assign said property at
the time of the execution of the Deed of
Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the
purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred
Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not
entitled to it, made matters worse for him.
VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of
respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was
introduced to her by her former classmate.
Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her
in the support case she was going to file against
her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after,
herein complainant and respondent started
having sexual relationship with each other.
According to Vitug, respondent also gave her
sweet inducements such as the promise of a job,
financial security for her daughter, and his
services as counsel for the prospective claim for
support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly
convinced complainant to sign anAffidavit of
Disclaimer which the latter signed without
reading the saidaffidavit. On 14 February 2001,
respondent allegedly advised complainant that
Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and
P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to
answer for the medical expenses of her daughter.
Instead ofturning them over to her, respondent
handed her his personal check in the amount of
P150,000.00 and promised to give her the
balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However,
sometime in April or May 2001,
respondentinformed her that he could not give
her the said amount because he used it for his
political campaign as he was then running for the
position ofProvincial Board Member of the 2nd
District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts
constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She
filed an administrative case against Rongcal
which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. It was then recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to
return to complainant the amount of P58,000.00
within two months. The same was approved by
the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed
a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set
Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP
and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for
Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for
immorality
(2) Whether or not respondents act of preparing
and notarizing the Affidavit, a document
disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the
Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission
to the bar is that an applicant must possess good
moral character. Said requirement persists as a
continuing condition for the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege. The Court has held that to justify
suspension or disbarment the act complained of
must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A
grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal actor so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible
to a high degree. On sexual relation and on
respondents subsequent marriage, by his own
admission, respondent is obviously guilty of
immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code
which states that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's
assertion that it was impossible for her not to
have known of his subsisting marriage,
complainants allegations of deceit were not
established by clear preponderant evidence
required in disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to
assist his client in entering intoa settlement with
Aquino after explaining all available options to
her. The law encourages the amicable settlement
not only of pending cases but also of disputes
which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule
1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As
complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed
to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later
blame her counsel when she experiences a
change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how
strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary
evidence, what will prevail is the presumption
that the respondent has regularly performed his
duty in accordance with his oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court
finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of
immorality and impose on him a FINE of
P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the
client is REMANDED to the IBP for further
investigation, report and recommendation within
ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision.
ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013
Facts:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from
the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case.
Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a
Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration
Branch which the respondent was the Labor
Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months,
complainants motion remained unacted,
prompting him to file a Second Motion for
Execution. However, still, there was no action
until the complainant agreed to give respondent
a portion of the monetary award thereof after the
latter asked from the former how much would be
his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of
execution but the employer of the complainant
moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued
a new writ of execution wherein complainants
monetary awards were reduced to the effect that
it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant
now filed the instant disbarment complaint before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
averring that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting
money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong
decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainants employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and
1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the
Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained
under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01
engraves the overriding prohibition against
lawyers from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule
1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his
suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause oath as a lawyer.27In this light, a lawyers
for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, compliance with and observance of the above-
Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in mentioned rules should be taken into
government service, enjoining them from using consideration in determining his moral fitness to
ones public position to: (1) promote private continue in the practice of law.
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) To note, "the possession of good moral character
allow private interests to interfere with public is both a condition precedent and a continuing
duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and
government office may be disciplined as a to retain membership in the legal
member of the Bar only when his misconduct profession."28This proceeds from the lawyers
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a duty to observe the highest degree of morality in
lawyer. order to safeguard the Bars integrity.29
The infractions of the respondent Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of
constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private
illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that activities, which tends to show deficiency in
are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show moral character, honesty, probity or good
a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or
and respectable members of the community. It disbarment.
treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct
as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when shameless, and that show a moral indifference to
committed under such scandalous or revolting the opinion of the upright and respectable
circumstances as to shock the communitys members of the community.36 It treads the line
sense of decency. On the other hand, gross of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute
misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
conduct, the transgression of some established reprehensible to a high degree, or when
and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a committed under such scandalous or revolting
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and circumstances as to shock the communitys
implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of sense of decency.37 On the other hand, gross
judgment." misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of conduct, the transgression of some established
the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
misconduct, he may be suspended or implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of
disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice judgment."
of the fact that he had already been disbarred in
a previous administrative case, entitled Sps.
Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which
therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously
decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the
Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine
in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize
respondents transgressions as discussed herein
and to equally deter the commission of the same
or similar acts in the future.
Principles:
Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a
government office may disciplined as a member
of the bar only when his misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the oath as a lawyer--
chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyers
responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the
overriding prohibition against lawyers from
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers
from encouraging any suit or proceeding or
delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive
or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly
directed to lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using ones public position
to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance
private interests; or (3) allow private interests to
interfere with public duties.26 It is well to note
that a lawyer who holds a government office may
be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when