Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely. ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred
considering the fact that he was granted pardon.
LEE VS TAMBAGO, ADM CASE NO. 5281
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not
absolute but conditional. It merely remitted his
Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez
Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for
the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that murder without regard to the pardon (which he invoked
is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged in defense). The crime was actually qualified by
signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. treachery and aggravated by its having been
and two other witnesses. In the said will, the decedent committed in hand, by taking advantage of his official
supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the time)
Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he devised to and with the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral
Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half-siblings of turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged
complainant. from the profession.
ISSUE: Was the will spurious? ORONCE VS COURT OF APPEALS, 298 SCRA 133 (1998)
HELD: Yes, thus Tambago violated the Notarial Law and Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally
the ethics of legal profession. took possession of the property in litigation using abusive
methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The
The law provides for certain formalities that must be illegal entry took place while the case was pending in
followed in the execution of wills. The object of
the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in admit of a fair settlement.” Both counsel fell short of
force. what was expected of them, despite their avowed
duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, the
HELD: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has
without the consent of its occupants & in contravention been less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor
of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making Code mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all
utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor
are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he dispute within his jurisdiction.” If he ever did so, or at
says that they “peacefully” took over the property, such least entertained the thought, the copious records of
“peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any
of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. reflection of the same.
Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member
of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional PAJARES VS ABAD SANTOS 30 SCRA 748 (1969)
Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or
abetting “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at FACTS:
lessening confidence in the legal system.” Udharam Bazar & Co. sued Gloria Pajares for recovery
of a certain sum of money. The lawsuit was eventually
assigned to the sala of the respondent Judge Abad
DE YSASI VS NLRC, 231 SCRA 173 (1994)
Santos.
Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons
In its complaint the Udharam Bazar & Co. averred,
respectively. The elder Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros among others, as follows:
Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the hacienda as “2. That defendant in 1961, ordered from the plaintiff
the farm administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III quantities of ready made goods and delivered to her in
underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was good condition and same were already sold, but did
confined and while he’s nursing from his infections he not make the full payment up to the present time;
was terminated, without due process, by his father. De
“3. That defendant is still indebted to the plaintiff in the
Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before
sum of P354.85, representing the balance of her
the National Labor Relations Commission. His father account as the value of the said goods, which is already
invoked that his son actually abandoned his work. overdue and payable.”
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work. Instead of answering the complaint against her, Pajares,
moved for a bill of particulars to require Udharam Bazar
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute & Co. to itemize the kinds of goods which she
abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must supposedly purchased from the said company.
be a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid
The inferior court denied the motion and her motion for
or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever
reconsideration has been likewise denied. She then
the employer-employee relationship, with the second
brought the incident on certiorari to the Court of First
element as the more determinative factor and being Instance, alleging respondent judge acted in grave
manifested by some overt acts. No such intent was abuse of discretion.
proven in this case.
Udharam Bazar & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that petition for a writ of certiorari and was granted. A
the lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable subsequent motion for reconsideration having been
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of similarly denied by the court, Pajares undertook the
present appeal to this Court.
court and especially in consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients ISSUE:
especially considering that the parties involved are WON counsel for petitioner failed in his duty to
father and son. This case may have never reached the encourage amicable settlement or a confession of
courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers judgment to accord respect to the other party’s claim,
to have both parties find an off court settlement but saving his client additional expenses and help prevent
the clogging of court dockets.
records show that no such effort was made. The useful
function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but
RULING:
to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or The circumstances surrounding this litigation definitely
withholding suit. He is often called upon less for prove that the appeal is frivolous and a plain trick to
dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every delay payment and prolong litigation unnecessarily.
phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and Such attitude deserves condemnation, wasting as it
a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of does, the time that the courts could well devote to
meritorious cases.
technicality in the conduct of litigation.
This simple collection case has needlessly clogged the
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
court dockets for over seven years. Had appellant been
explicitly provides that “(a) lawyer shall encourage his but prudently advised by her counsel to confess
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will judgment and ask from her creditor the reasonable time
she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness, the system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully
expenses of litigation that she has incurred by way of perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and
filing fees in the Court of First Instance, premiums for her to their clients, which include prompt payment of
appeal bond, appellate court docket fees, printing of
financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a
her appellant’s brief, and attorney’s fees would have
been much more than sufficient to pay off her just debt manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal
to appellee. Yet, here she still remains saddled with the profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
same debt, burdened by accumulated interests, after Responsibility.[7]
having spent uselessly much more than the amount in
litigation in this worthless cause. In the instant case, there is no question as to Gutierrez's
guilt. His admission of the loan he contracted and his
The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is
failure to pay the same leaves no room for
needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets
with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. A litigation interpretation. Neither can he justify his act of
involves time, expense and ill feelings, which may well non-payment of debt by his dire financial condition.
be avoided by the settlement of the action. And in Gutierrez should not have contracted loans which are
those clearly unmeritorious cases, a compromise or beyond his financial capacity to pay.
even a confession of judgment will accord respect to
the just claim of the other party, save the client Likewise, we cannot overlook Gutierrez's propensity of
additional expenses and help prevent clogging of court
employing deceit and misrepresentations for the
dockets.
purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of
MANUEL YUHICO VS FRED GUTIERREZ, A.C. NO. 8391, paying them. Records show Gutierrez's pattern of
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 habitually making promises of paying his debts, yet
repeatedly failing to deliver. The series of text messages
Attorney; gross misconduct. Deliberate failure to pay just he sent to Yuhico promising to pay his loans, while
debts constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer simultaneously giving excuses without actually making
may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of good of his promises, is clearly reprehensible.
law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of Undoubtedly, his acts demonstrate lack of moral
justice and vanguards of our legal system. They must, at character to satisfy the responsibilities and duties
all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of
bar, the courts and to their clients, which include the court.
prompt payment of financial obligations.
We also note that in Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez,[8] the
In view of the previous disbarment of Gutierrez, the Court had already disbarred Gutierrez from the practice
IBP-CBD recommended to the Court that, instead of of law for gross misconduct due to non-payment of just
rendering the instant case moot, Gutierrez should be debts and issuance of bouncing checks.
disbarred anew effective upon the expiration of the
sanction pursuant to the March 26, 2004 Supreme Court In view of the foregoing, while we agree with the
Decision. The IBP-CBD explained that while we do not findings of the IBP, we cannot, however, adopt its
have jurisprudence on the issue of double or multiple recommendation to disbar Gutierrez for the second
disbarment, the American jurisprudence, however, time, considering that Gutierrez had already been
recognizes double or multiple disbarments as well as the previously disbarred. Indeed, as the IBP pointed out, we
minimum requirement of five (5) years for readmission to do not have double or multiple disbarment in our laws or
the Bar. jurisprudence. Neither do we have a law mandating a
minimum 5-year requirement for readmission, as cited
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, in by the IBP. Thus, while Gutierrez's infraction calls for the
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-649, resolved to adopt the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar him anew.
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD and
approve it with modification as to the payment of the WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-649 dated
amount of Ninety Thousand Pesos (P90,000.00), this time, December 11, 2008, of the IBP, which found FRED L.
without interest. GUTIERREZ guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT, is AFFIRMED.
He is ORDERED to PAY the amount of Ninety Thousand
We sustain the findings of the IBP, but with modification Pesos (P90,000.00) to the complainant immediately from
as to its recommendations. receipt of this decision with interest.
We have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts NELIA PASUMBAL DE CHAVEZ-BLANCO VS JAIME
constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be LUMASAG JR., A.C. NO. 5195, APRIL 16, 2009
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed
and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected by complainant Nelia P. de Chavez-Blanco
to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high against respondent Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr., for deceit,
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing dishonesty and gross misconduct.
so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial
In a Report and Recommendation dated 11 December Respondent countered that Mario Blanco was the true
2001,[1] the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) owner of the properties, which had to be titled in
Commissioner Milagros San Juan found respondent complainant’s name, as Mario Blanco was a U.S. citizen.
guilty of the charges and recommended the penalty of Mario Blanco had requested him to look for a buyer of
disbarment. Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors the properties and, in the course of selling them,
reduced the penalty to a five (5)-year suspension in its respondent claimed that he had only transacted with
Resolution XV-2002-229 dated 29 June 2001. In a the former and never with complainant. Respondent
Resolution dated 9 December 2002, the Court, averred that he had been authorized in November 1989
however, remanded the case to the IBP in view of its to sell the property, through a Special Power of
findings that no formal hearing/investigation was Attorney, for a price of not less thanP250,000.00 net for
conducted. the owner.[8]
Upon remand to the IBP, the case was re-assigned to IBP Respondent also alleged that the deed of absolute sale
Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa and hearings were if the two (2) lots had been executed on 19 March
accordingly held thereafter. 1990 but, only one lot was initially paid in the amount
of P281,980.00, which he immediately remitted to Mario
Through her attorney-in-fact, Atty. Eugenia J. Muñoz, Blanco. The payment for the other lot was withheld,
complainant alleged in her Complaint[2] that she was a pending the relocation of the squatters who had been
resident of theUnited States of America together with occupying the premises. And when respondent had
her husband, Mario Blanco. She also stated that she finally collected the proceeds of the second lot more
owned two (2) adjacent parcels of land in Quezon City, than three (3) years after, he asked Mario Blanco if the
each with an area of 400 square meters, covered by former could use the amount for a real estate venture
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 22162 and 22163 whose profit, if successful, he would share with the latter.
registered in her name. In a document dated 20 Mario Blanco allegedly did not think twice and
November 1989, she authorized respondent, who were consented to the proposal. The venture, however, did
her husband’s first cousin, to sell said lots.[3] not push through.[9]
In a letter dated 20 March 1990, respondent reported
that he had sold only one lot for the price of P320,000.00 Respondent strongly maintained that the two (2) lots
and therefrom he deducted P38,130.00 for taxes and had been sold for only P563,960.00.[10]
commissions. And, allegedly, per complainant’s
instructions, he remitted the remaining balance Finally, respondent denied the charge of falsification.
of P281,900.00 to a certain Belen Johnnes.[4] He claimed that complainant and her spouse, Mario
Blanco, had in fact signed the Special Power of
In 1995, complainant was informed by respondent that Attorney, but it was only notarized later.[11]
the other lot remained unsold due to the presence of
squatters on the property. In his Report and Recommendation dated 4 December
2006, Atty. Dennis A.B. Funa arrived at the following
In December 1998, Mario Blanco discovered that in findings:
truth, the two (2) lots had been sold on 11 March 1990 to
the spouses Celso and Consolacion Martinez for the It appears from the records that the
price of P1,120,000.00, and that new titles had been two lots were sold by Respondent
issued to the transferees. Mario Blanco confronted for P560,000.00, not P1,120,000.00 as
respondent with these facts in a letter, but the latter alleged by Complainant. The basis is
disregarded the same. Thus, in May 1999, complainant, the Deed of Absolute Sale
through Atty. Muñoz sent a demand letter to dated March 11, 1990 which
respondent directing him to remit and turn over to her shows that the two lots composing 800
the entire proceeds of the sale of the properties. sq. meters being sold forP560,000.00.
There appears to be no documentary
Soon thereafter, respondent admitted the sale of the basis for the claimed amount
properties and his receipt of its proceeds, but he never of P1,120,000.00 of Complainant.
tendered or offered to tender the same to complainant. However, Respondent in his Comment
Despite repeated and continued demands, respondent stated that the two lots were sold by
has since not remitted the amount equivalent him for P563,960.00. In any case, we
to P838,100.00 (P278,000.00 for the first parcel of land shall uphold and apply the amount
and P560,000.00 for the second).[5] stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
MELVYN G. GARCIA VS. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO,A.C. The SC repeated that the practice of law is not a right,
NO. 7973 AND A.C. NO. 10457, FEBRUARY 03, 2015 but a privilege. It is granted only to those possessing
good moral character. A violation of the high moral
Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against
standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition
Sesbreño, claiming that the latter still practices law
of the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, including
despite being convicted of homicide in Criminal Case
the penalty of disbarment.
CBU-31733, and despite being on parole and not
having fully served hissentence. Sesbreño was ordered DISBARRED.
ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA VS. ATTY. IAN RAYMOND required for admission to the Bar, but must also be
PANGALANAN, A.C. NO. 10676, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this
exclusive and honored fraternity.
This is a case for disbarment against Atty. Pangalangan
for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of In the case at bar, complainant alleged that
authority as an educator, and "other unscrupulous respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit
activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the relations with both married and unmarried women
legal profession." between the years 1990 to 2007, including
complainant's own wife. Through documentary
Complainant and respondent were best friends and evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the
both graduated from the University of the Philippines corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented,
(UP) College of Law in 1990, where they were part of a complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit
peer group or barkada with several of their classmates. relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant
After passing the bar examinations and being admitted evidence.
as members of the Bar in 1991, they were both
registered with the IBP Quezon City. In sum, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable
arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of
Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by
(Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children. attacking the Petition through technicalities and
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions
respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations showed that he lacked the degree of morality required
with married and unmarried women between the years of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the
1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit relations involved: penalty of disbarment.
1. AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP B. Making Legal Services Available
College of Law, from 1990 to 1992, which complainant
had personal knowledge of such illicit relations; 2. BBB, PEOPLE VS ESTEBIA, 27 SCRA 106 (1969)
sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from
1994 to 1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin; Once again, this Court is confronted with the unwanted
3. CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while task of ascertaining whether certain acts and conduct
also being romantically involved with DDD; 4. DDD, of a member of the Bar deserve disciplinary action.
sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002, despite
still being married to Jardiolin and while still being The problem arose because of facts that follow:
romantically involved with CCC; 5. EEE, who is related to One RemigioEstebia was convicted of rape by the
complainant, sometime during the period from May Court of First Instance of Samar, 1 and sentenced to
2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still being suffer the capital punishment. His case came up before
romantically involved with CCC. this Court on review.
ISSUE: Should Atty. Pangalangan be disbarred? On December 14, 1966, Lope E. Adriano, a member of
the Bar, was appointed by this Court as Estebia's
RULING: Atty. Pangalangan was disbarred by the SC for counsel de oficio. In the notice of his appointment,
grossly immoral conduct. Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within
thirty days from notice. He was advised that to enable
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
him to examine the case, the record would be at his
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
disposal. Adriano received this notice on December 20,
FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
1966. On January 19, 1967, Adriano sought for a 30-day
extension to file appellant's brief in mimeographed form.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
On February 18, Adriano again moved for a 20-day
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
extension (his second). This was followed by a third filed
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE on March 8, for fifteen days. And a fourth on March 27,
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND also for fifteen days. He moved for a "last" extension of
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. ten days on April 11. On April 21, he even sought a
special extension of five days. All these motions for
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that extension were granted. The brief was due on April 26,
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall 1967. But no brief was filed.
he, whether in public or private life. behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal On September 25, 1967, Adriano was ordered to show
profession. cause within ten days from notice thereof why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him for
The practice of law is a privilege given to those who failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications
for the profession. Good moral character is not only
time therefor. Adriano did not bother to give any
explanation. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed,
counsel's statements in his motions for extension have
For failing to comply with the September 25, 1967 gone down to the level of empty and meaningless
resolution, this Court, on October 3, 1968, resolved to words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.
impose upon him a fine of P500 payable to this Court
within fifteen days from notice with a warning that upon It is true that he is a court-appointed counsel. But we do
further non-compliance with the said resolution of say that as such counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty
September 25, 1967 within the same period of fifteen to the accused as one employed and paid by
days, "more drastic disciplinary action will be taken defendant himself. Because, as in the case of the latter,
against him." Still, counsel paid no heed. he must exercise his best efforts and professional ability
in behalf of the person assigned to his care. His is to
Finally, on December 5, 1968, this Court ordered render effective assistance. The accused defendant
Adriano to show cause within ten days from notice expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory
thereof why he should not be suspended from the representation. We do not accept the paradox that
practice of law "for gross misconduct and violation of his responsibility is less where the defended party is poor. It
oath of office as attorney." By express order of this Court, has been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in
the resolution was personally served upon him on demanding high standards of duty of attorneys
December 18, 1968. He ignored the resolution. appointed to defend indigent persons charged with
crime." 4 For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the
Upon the facts just narrated, we now pass judgment. bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger dose of
social conscience and a little less of self interest.
1. By specific authority, this Court may assign an Because of this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious
attorney to render professional aid to a destitute of his duties to the indigent he defends.
appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an
attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the Worth remembering is the 1905 case of In the matter of
lawyer so assigned "to render the required service." 2 A Jose Robles Lahesa. 5 He was counsel de oficio before
lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent the Supreme Court in two cases: one for robo en
prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, cuadrilla and the other for homicide. He failed to take
"should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's any action in behalf of the defendants in both eases.
behalf. 3 This Court imposed upon him a fine of P200. Significant is
the pronouncement we there made that: "This court
No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation should exact from its officers and subordinates the most
of appellant's brief. And yet, between December 20, scrupulous performance of their official duties,
1966, when he received notice of his appointment, and especially when negligence in the performance of
December 5, 1968, when the last show cause order was those duties necessarily result in delays in the
issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was prosecution of criminal cases and the detention of
afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. accused persons pending appeal." The validity of the
The death sentence below imposed was upon a plea of foregoing observation remains to the present day. 6 It
guilty. The record of the proceedings leading to the applies to the present case.
lower court's sentence consists of but 31 pages. Counsel
had the record since January 19, 1967. In fact, in his Here, appellant was without brief since December 20,
third motion for extension of time, he manifested that 1966. The effect of this long delay need not be essayed.
the drafting of apellant's brief "is more than half-way We, therefore, find that Attorney Lope E. Adriano has
through" and that "additional time is needed to review, violated his oath that he will conduct himself as a lawyer
effectuate the necessary corrections, put in final form according to the best of his "knowledge and discretion".
and print the said brief." In his motion for fourth extension,
he intimated that the preparation of the brief "is almost 2. An attorney's duty of prime importance is "[t]o
through" and that "additional time is needed to redraft observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
and rehash some significant portions of said brief and justice and judicial officers. The first Canon of the Code
have the same stencilled and mimeographed upon of Ethics enjoins a lawyer "to maintain towards the
completion of a definitive text." His motion for last (fifth) Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the
extension of time came with the excuse that he temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
"suddenly got sick (influenza) in the course of redrafting maintenance of its supreme importance." By the oath of
and rehashing some significant portions of said brief, office, the lawyer undertook to "obey the laws as well as
which ailment hampered and interrupted his work the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities."
thereon for sometime." Finally, in his "Special Extension of In People vs. Carillo, 8 this Court's pointed observation
Time" to file brief, he claimed that he needed only five was that as an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's "sworn
days from April 21, 1967 to put said brief in final form and and moral duty to help build and not destroy
have the same stencilled and mimeographed. unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the
courts so essential to the proper administration of lawyer should, in violation of his oath of office." He was
justice." suspended from the practice of law for three months.
Here, we have a clear case of an attorney whose acts In the present case, counsel's pattern of conduct, it
exhibit willful dis-obedience of lawful orders of this Court. would seem to us, reveals a propensity on the part of
A cause sufficient is thus present for suspension or counsel to benumb appreciation of his obligation as
disbarment. 9 Counsel has received no less than three counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that
resolutions of this Court requiring compliance of its should be accorded this Court.
orders. To be recalled is that on September 25, 1967, this
Court directed him, in ten days from notice, to show For the reasons given, we vote to suspend Attorney
cause why disciplinary action should not be taken Lope E. Adriano from the practice of law throughout the
against him for his failure to file appellant's brief despite Philippines for a period of one (1) year.
the lapse of the time therefor. Nothing was done by
counsel for over a year. To impress upon counsel the Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal
gravity of his repeated failure to obey this Court's orders, record, in this Court, of Lope E. Adriano as member of
on October 3,1968, a fine of P500 was clamped upon the Bar. So ordered.
him. He was directed to pay that fine in ten days. He
was in that order also required to file his brief in fifteen
days. He was warned that more drastic disciplinary PEOPLE VS ROSQUETA, 55 SCRA 486 (1974)
action would be taken upon his failure to do either. Still
Rosqueta Jr and two others were convicted of a crime.
he remained unmoved. Then, this Court issued the
They appeal their conviction until it reached the
peremptory order of December 5, 1968 commanding
Supreme Court. Their lawyer (counsel de parte), Atty.
him to show cause within ten days from notice thereof
Gregorio Estacio, failed to file their Brief. And so the
why he should not be suspended from the practice of
Supreme Court ordered Atty. Estacio to show cause
law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of
why he should not be disciplined for failure to file said
office. The Court made it certain that this order would
Brief. Atty. Estacio failed yet again to submit his
reach him. He personally acknowledged receipt
explanation. The Supreme Court then suspended him
thereof. He has not paid the fine. He has done nothing.
from the practice of law except for the purpose of filing
the Brief in this particular case. Atty. Estacio then filed a
This is 1969. No brief has as yet been filed. And this,
Motion for Reconsideration where he explained that he
inspite of the fact that as early as March 27, 1967, when
did actually prepare an explanation the same being
he moved for a fourth extension of time to file his
left with Rosqueta Sr (father of accused) for the latter to
brief de oficio, he represented to this Court that all that
mail it. But then Rosqueta Sr.’s house burned down
was needed was to redraft and to rehash some
together with the explanation. He only came to know of
significant portions of the brief which was almost
this fact when he was preparing for the Motion for
through and to have the same stencilled and
Reconsideration.
mimeographed upon completion of a definitive text.
Disrespect is here present. Contumacy is as patent.
Atty. Estacio also explained that his clients are
Disciplinary action is in order.
withdrawing their appeal by reason of their failure to
raise the needed fund for the appeal.
Controlling here is the 1961 decision In the Matter of Atty.
FiloteoDianala Jo. 10 There, as here, counsel failed to file ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Estacio’s suspension should
appellant's brief (in a criminal case) despite extensions continue.
of time granted him by this Court. Likewise, this Court
issued a show-cause order why disciplinary action HELD: No. His liability is mitigated. But the Supreme Court
should not be taken against him. The explanation was noted that Atty. Estacio has been irresponsible, has
considered unsatisfactory. This Court imposed a fine of been negligent and inattentive to his duty to his clients.
P50 payable in ten days from notice. Attorney Dianala Atty. Estacio should be aware that even in those cases
Jo did not pay that fine. Came the subsequent where counsel de parte is unable to secure from his
resolution of this Court advising him to pay the fine, clients or from their near relatives the amount necessary
otherwise, he would be arrested and confined to jam. to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily
This warning was not heeded. On November 18, 1960, conclude his connection with the case. He should be
the Court resolved to give him ten days from notice aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court
within which to explain why he should not be as well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and
suspended from the practice of law. Despite receipt of unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not
this notice, he did not care to explain his behaviour enough that he prepares them; he must see to it that
which this Court considered as "consumacy and they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this
unwillingness to comply with the lawful orders of this case is inexcusable.
Court of which he is an officer or to conduct himself as a
Applicability of Code to Government Lawyers duties as members of the Pasig City Board of
Canvassers.
MACOCO VS DIAZ, 70 PHIL 97 (1940)
Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on
A complaint for malpractice filed by one Marcelino Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of said
Macoco against Esteban B. Diaz, attorney-at-law, with Board, while Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of
license to practice in Philippine courts. In order to Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman as
redeem a property belonging to his wife's father, which provided by law. Petitioner alleges that, in violation of
had been levied upon sold at public auction, R.A. No. 6646, §27(b), respondents tampered with the
complainant Marcelino Macoco deposited with the votes received by him, through illegal padding.
provincial sheriff of Ilocos Norte the sum of P380. As no
redemption could be done, the money was returned by He maintains that, by signing the Statements of Votes
the sheriff to one Alberto Suguitan, then counsel for (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despite
Marcelino Macoco. Suguitan used the money respondents' knowledge that some of the entries therein
according to himself and failed to turn it over to were false, the latter committed a serious breach of
Macoco; whereupon, the latter entrusted its collection public trust and of their lawyers' oath. Respondents
to respondent herein, Esteban B. Diaz. It appears that denied the allegations and alleged that the
Diaz succeeded in collecting P300 from Suguitan, but preparation of the SoVs was made by the canvassing
he also misappropriated this amount. committees which the Board had constituted to assist in
the canvassing. They claimed that the errors pointed
Respondent admitted the misappropriation. He out by complainant could be attributed to honest
averred, however, that he had an agreement with mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.
Macoco for the payment of the money by him
misappropriated; that when this agreement failed, he The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to which this
again entered into a similar arrangement with matter had been referred, recommended the dismissal
Hermenegildo Galapia, Lope Ragragola and Pedro of the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a
Ragragola, who, as he attempted to prove, were the motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then
persons to whom the sum of P300 was really due, filed petition before this Court. Issue: Whether or not
Macoco being merely a trustee thereof; and that in respondents were guilty of misconduct and violation of
pursuance of this arrangement whereby he would pay the lawyer’s oath. Holding: What is involved here is not
the sum of P300, deducting therefrom 20 per cent for his just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of
attorney's fees, he had already made partial payments votes per precinct but a systematic scheme to pad the
to said persons. votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of
petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the
Macoco, however, and Lope Ragragola denied this election returns.
agreement. Whatever might have been the agreement
and with whomsoever respondent might have entered Despite the fact that these discrepancies, especially the
it into, the undeniable fact remains that he double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and
misappropriated the money in breach of trust. This the variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in
makes him unfit for the office of an attorney-atlaw. And the SoVs and CoC, were apparent on the face of these
his being a deputy fiscal and not law practitioner at the documents and that the variation involves substantial
time of the misappropriation, far from mitigating his guilt, number of votes, respondents nevertheless certified the
aggravates it. Want of moral integrity is to be more SoVs as true and correct.
severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a
responsible public office. Their acts constitute misconduct. As a lawyer who holds
a government position may not be disciplined as a
Wherefore, respondent Esteban B. Diaz is hereby member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of
disbarred from the practice of law, and is hereby his duties as a government official. However, if the
ordered to surrender his certificate to the clerk of court misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of
within five days from notice. This Solicitor General is Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or is of
hereby ordered to investigate the conduct of Attorney such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer
Alberto Suguitan and file later the corresponding report. or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual
may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such
PIMENTEL VS LLORENTE, 339 SCRA 154 (2000) misconduct.
FACTS: Petitioner, Aquilino Pimentel who was then In this case, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in
running for Senator in the 1995 elections filed a question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01
complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not
M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross misconduct, engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's conduct." By express provision of Canon 6, this is made
oath. This is in connection with the discharge of their applicable to lawyers in the government service. In
addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as
lawyers to "do no falsehood." The above committed parties in their total meaning and import in determining
acts would have merited suspension were it not for the once and for all the direction direction and thrust of
fact that this is their first administrative transgression and these evidence of both parties."
in the case of Salayon, after a long public service.
Under, the circumstances the Court find respondents Two (2) days later on, or on May 21, 1975, respondent
guilty of misconduct and imposes on each of them a Judge set aside the Resolution of March 25, 1975, and
fine in the amount of P10,000.00 with a warning that reinstated the Information. Petitioner moved for
commission of similar acts will be dealt with more reconsideration of the Order on the ground that (a) "the
severely. judgment of acquittal which became final immediately
upon promulgation and could not, therefore, be
CABRAL VS PUNO, 70 SCRA 606 (1976) recalled for correction or amendment"; and (b) by
instituting Civil Case No. 120-V-74, respondent San
Certiorari and prohibition to nullify the Order of
Diego lost his right to intervene in the prosecution of the
respondent Judge dated May 21, 1975, reviving the
criminal case. This motion was denied, as well as the
Information in Criminal Case No. B-537-74 of the Court of
second motion for reconsideration, hence this petition,
First Instance of Bulacan, Baliwag Branch, and to
raising the issue of whether or not the trial court had
prohibit said court from conducting further proceedings
jurisdiction to set aside its Resolution of March 25, 1975.
on the case.