ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON, Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor for students Rosario Torres-Yu, joined Atty.

Lambino in
opposing the turn-over of the suspects to Atty. Dizon, despite the latters claim that under its
Complainant, Charter the NBI was authorized to make warrantless arrests.
- versus - After what appeared to be a heated discussion between Atty. Dizon and the UP officials, the
students were allowed to go back to their dormitories, with Atty. Villamor undertaking to
ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO,
accompany them to the NBI the following morning.
Respondent.
Proceeding:
x-----------------------------------------x
Administrative case against the act of Atty. Lambino in refusing to turn over the suspected
ATTY. MARICHU C. LAMBINO, students to the group of Atty. Dizon constitutes violation of Code of Professional
Responsibility
Complainant,
Administrative case against Atty. Dizon in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
-versus- in trying to arrest the student-suspects.

ATTY. ORLANDO V. DIZON, Complaint:

Respondent. - A complaint was filed by Atty. Dizon against Atty. Lambino for violation of Canon 1,
Rules 1.1 to 1.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 6968
Rule 1.1 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
lconduct.

Promulgated: Rule 1.2 – a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
August 9, 2006
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
_____________________________
- Atty. Dizon had earlier filed a criminal complaint also against Atty. Lambino,
Facts: together with Chancellor Posadas and Vice Chancellor Torres-Yu and Col. Bentain,
before the Ombudsman, for violation of P.D. 1829 which makes it unlawful for
The killing during a rumble on December 8, 1994 of UP graduating student Dennis Venturina anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenses.
drew the then Chancellor of UP Diliman Roger Posadas to seek the assistance of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Comment / Answer:

Acting on the request of Chancellor Posadas, Atty. Orlando Dizon, then Chief of the Special Atty. Lambino in turn charged Atty. Dizon before the IBP with violation of the Code
Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, together with his men, went to the Office of Col. Eduardo of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03; Canon 6, Rules
Bentain, head of the UP Security Force on December 12, 1994. 6.01 and 6.02; and Canon 8, Rule 8.01,

As two student-suspects in the killing, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, were at the
time in the office of Col. Bentain, Atty. Dizon requested to take them into his custody.
Atty. Marichu Lambino, Legal Counsel of UP Diliman, who went to the Office of Col. Bentain,
advised against Atty. Dizons move.
Rule 1.1 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful lconduct.
Rule 1.2 – a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
proceeding or delay any man's cause. lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to Case Law:
see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary Posadas v. Ombudsman, held that [f]or the failure of the NBI agents to comply with the
action. constitutional and procedural requirements, . . . their attempt to arrest [the two student-
suspects] without a warrant was illegal.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Dipositive Portion:

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, WHEREFORE, CBD Case No. 346 against Atty. Marichu C. Lambino is DISMISSED.
offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Orlando V. Dizon is, in CBD Case No. 373, found guilty of violation of Canon 1 of Rule
Investigating Body: 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline

Ruling:

-In the complaint filed by Atty. DIzon against Atty Lambino, the CBD recommended the
dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Lambino in light of a finding that she acted within her
official duties as she safeguarded the rights of the students in accordance with the schools
substitute parental authority and within the bounds of the law as the NBI agents had no
warrants of arrest.

-In the complaint against Atty. Dizon, the Commissioner recommended to reprimand him for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in recklessly trying to arrest the suspects
without warrant.

- in the complaint against UP officials, he objection of the said UP officials to the arrest of the
students cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering it
unconstitutional, they having a right to prevent the arrest [of the students] at the time
because their attempted arrest was illegal.

Rule Violated:

Atty. Dizon violated the Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

ANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

xxxx
LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, A.C. No. 6317
Complainant,
- versus -
ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
August 31, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Facts:
Lijuaco engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist
in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the
amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba,
Laguna which is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24.
Atty. Terrado failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ
of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she
subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Because of that, Lijuaco filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for
gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorneys
fees.
Proceeding:
an administrative complaint was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against
respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him
despite receipt of payment representing attorney’s fees.
Complaint:
Atty. Terrado failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ
of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she
subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Comment / Answer:
Atty. Terrado averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for
legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not
include LRC Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna.
Investigating Body:
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Ruling:
- Atty. Terrado was found guilty for violating the Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate 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
latters 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.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered
case;
 (f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter - directed to return to complainant the amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to
to which he belongs; existing jurisprudence.

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from
the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and
20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will
be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN, within thirty (30) days from
notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this
Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.

Rules Violated:

-Rule 1.01 by luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and
misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed
property respondent

-Rule 9.02 By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as

commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

-Rule 18.02

-Rule 20.01

Case Law:

- Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
suspended on 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 to any lawful order of a superior court;
and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

- Santos v. Lazaro[16] and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,[17] we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a clients
cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to
exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust
reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the
legal profession, the courts and society.

Penalty:

- suspension from the practice of law for six months.

DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR., A.C. No. 7057
Complainant,
VERSUS
ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT,
Promulgated:
July 25, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Facts:
Almendarez was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan
City, Branch 2 (trial court). Atty. Langit served as complainant’s counsel. While the case was
pending, defendant Roger Bumanlag (Bumanlag) deposited monthly rentals for the property in
dispute to the Branch Clerk of Court.
On 3 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision in the ejectment case based on a
compromise agreement executed by Almendarez and Bumanlag. On 18 December 1995, the
trial court issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of the decision. A court order
dated 2 March 2000 granted the Omnibus Motion for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited
Rentals filed by Atty. Langit as complainant’s counsel. Respondent filed a second motion for
withdrawal of deposited rentals, which the trial court also granted on 16 March 2000.
Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned that Atty. Langit was able to withdraw the rentals
deposited by Bumanlag. Atty. Langit received a total of P255,000, as evidenced by two receipts
signed by him. Atty. Langit did not inform complainant of these transactions.
Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida, sent respondent on 30 June 2003
a final demand letter for the accounting and return of the P255,000. Atty. Langit failed to reply.
Proceeding:
A complaint was filed by David Almendarez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit (respondent) for acts unbecoming a lawyer.
Complaint:
Failure of Atty. Langit to failing to account for complainants funds. Also the complainant accuses
Atty. Langit of neglecting to pursue the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the
ejectment case.
Comment / Answer:
Atty. Langit did file any answer to the complaints addressed to him.
Investigating Body:
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Ruling:
Atty Langit is found guilty of violating Canons 1, 11, 16.01, 16.03, 17 of Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 14, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Rules Violated:
-Canon 1 and Canon 11 since Atty. Langit ignored this directive, which is to file and answer to
the complaint-affidavit which therefore exhibits a blatant disrespect for authority.
xxxxxx
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
xxxxxxx
-Canon 16.01 and 16.03 since he received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals
intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful owner.
Respondent received the money in his capacity as counsel for complainant. Therefore,
respondent held the money in trust for complainant.
Xxxx
Rule 16.01A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
Rule 16.03A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to
his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
xxxx
-Canon 17 since it seems that after respondent received the withdrawn deposits, he never
contacted complainant again. He did not pursue the implementation of the writ of execution
issued in the ejectment case, to the prejudice of complainant. By his inaction, respondent
violated the trust and confidence reposed in him.

-Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court since Atty. Langit’s failure to turn over the money
to complainant despite the latter’s demands gives rise to the presumption that he had
converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal profession.

xxxx

SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of clients funds; contempt When an attorney unjustly retains in
his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt
as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings
under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

xxxxxx

Case Law:

-In the case of Eustaquio v. Rimorin, it was held that the relation of attorney and client is
highly fiduciary, requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of the attorney.
Respondent miserably failed in this regard. Instead, he demonstrated a lack of integrity, care,
and devotion required by the legal profession from its members. Whenever a lawyer is no
longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, this Court has the right and duty to
withdraw his privilege as officer of the Court and member of the Bar.

Penalty:

- suspension from the practice of law for two years.

- restitute within 30 days from finality of this Decision, complainant’s P255,000, with interest
at 12% per annum

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for
two years effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to RESTITUTE, within
30 days from finality of this Decision, complainants P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum
from 30 June 2003 until fully paid. We DIRECT respondent to submit to the Court proof of
payment within 15 days from payment of the full amount.
Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc
VERSUS
ATTY. Napoleon A, Espiritu,
Promulgated:
July 20, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Facts:
Complainants sought the services of respondent sometime in November 1997 regarding a
consolidated ejectment case where they were being sued in their respective capacities as
officers and members of the association. Complainants lost so respondent advised them to
file a supersedeas bond to stay their eviction. Complainants then entrusted the certain
amounts to respondent as payment therefor.
Respondent deposited only P48,000.00 before the Clerk of Court as evidenced by receipts
furnished by respondent himself. Minerva Genato then made a verbal demand for
respondent to return the remaining balance, upon which respondent delivered a personal
check for P141,904.00 in the name of Atty. Leonardo Ocampo. The check bounced for
insufficiency of funds.
Atty. Ocampo sent a demand letter to Genato to make good the payment of the check.
Genato continued to make verbal demands and later sent a letter demanding the payment of
the amount of the check, to no avail.
The Association was thus constrained to seek the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). Through Atty. Helengrace G. Cabasal, another demand letter dated July 17, 2000 was sent
for respondent to return the remaining balance of P206,497.00. An Information charging
respondent with estafa was likewise filed before the RTC of Manila.
Proceeding:
This is an instant disbarment case was filed by the officers/members of the Dayan Sta. Ana
Christian Neighborhood Association Inc., charging Atty. Napoleon A. Espiritu with deceitful
conduct, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, and/or violation of oath of office.
Complaint:
The respondent issued a bouncing check to the complainants.
Comment / Answer:
-Respondent admitted that he deposited to the clerk of court the amount of P48,481.00 as
partial supersedeas bond. Respondent likewise admitted that he issued a postdated check to
cover the balance (P141,904.00), and that he was unable to fund the same. . He insisted that
complainants have no cause of action against him, and that the instant administrative
complaint must be dismissed since the complainants were never prejudiced by the bounced
check and the demand letter sent by Atty. Ocampo to the complainants.
- Complainants refuted these allegations, insisting that the basis of the filing of the instant
administrative case is the misappropriation or conversion of the amounts which should have
been deposited with the court. Due to respondent’s unlawful acts, they were prejudiced and
suffered damages
Investigating Body:
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Ruling:
It is clear that respondent misappropriated the money which his clients, herein complainants,
had entrusted to him for a specific purpose.
Rules Violated:
Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - By obtaining a loan from
Atty. Ocampo in the form of a check is a clear admission that the money entrusted to
respondent by complainants was misappropriated since the respondent failed to make an
accounting of the funds entrusted to him and the absence of an explanation why only a
partial payment of the bond was made.
Xxxx
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
xxxxx
Case Law:
- In Parias v. Paguinto, the Court had the occasion to state that money entrusted to a lawyer
for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must
immediately be returned to the client on demand. Indeed, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally
appropriate his or her client’s money.
- In Rangwani v. Dio,[18] we ruled that it is not enough for a member of the bar to deny the
charges:
Quite conspicuously, despite the opportunities accorded to respondent to refute the charges
against him, he failed to do so or even offer a valid explanation. The record is bereft of any
evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence to meet the
charges against him. His nonchalance does not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of
respect towards the public officers who were assigned to investigate the cases. On the
contrary, respondent’s comments only markedly admitted complainant’s accusations. When
the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges
against him. He must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show
proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is
expected of him. These, respondent miserably failed to do.

Penalty:

-one-year suspension from the practice of law

- directed to return the funds entrusted to him by complainants

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, Atty. Napoleon A. Espiritu is guilty of violating the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Accordingly, he is penalized with SUSPENSION from the practice of law for One
(1) Year effective immediately. Respondent is DIRECTED to return the funds entrusted to him
by complainants, and to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision.
DAHLIA S. GACIAS, Comment / answer:

Complainant,
- versus –
ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
November 16, 2006
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Facts:
Atty. Alexander Bulauitan used to own a parcel of land with an area of 1,242 square meters
located at Tuguegarao City. Complainant and respondent entered into an agreement for the
purchase, on installment basis. Complainant initially paid respondent of P82,000.00. .
Subsequent installment payments were remitted complainant had, as of November 1996,
paid the respondent, in cash and in kind, amounted to P300,000.00.
Complainant alleges in her affidavit-complaint that she asked for the copy of the title over the
92-square meter portion upon learning about the mortgage the respondent constituted over
his Tuguegarao property. According to complainant, respondent’s inability to produce the
desired title impelled her not to complete payment anymore and to request the return of the
amount she had already paid the respondent. Complainant further alleged that the
respondent agreed, but has not made good his undertaking, to make reimbursement.
Complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa against the respondent.
Proceeding:
Respondent admitted entering into a land purchase agreement with the complainant, but
stressed the private nature of the transaction between them. . Respondent admitted, though,
that he undertook to pay back the amount of P300,000.00 as a measure to avoid scandal,
given what to him was complainants penchant to make a scene whenever the opportunity
presented itself.
Investigating Body:
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Ruling:
The respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.
Rules violated:
-Rule 1.01, Rule 7.03, Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
Since Atty. Balauitan refused without justifiable reason to comply with his obligation under a
contract he entered into with the complainant. This is because instead going through the
motion of delivering the portion of his property to its buyer after his receipt of almost the
entire purchase price therefor, the respondent mortgaged the whole property without so
much as informing the complainant about it.
Penalty:
One-year suspension from the practice of law.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, herein respondent, ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found guilty of gross
misconduct and dishonesty and ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year effective upon his receipt hereof.

Complaint for disbarment instituted by the herein complainant Dahlia S. Gacias against Atty.
Alexander Bulauitan on grounds of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Complaint:

Failure of the respondent to make reimbursement to the complainant for his failure to deliver
the title of his land.