1.) Ui vs Bonifacio
Dantes purportedly en
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts:
Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an
illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two
children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against
respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainant’s husband. It is respondent’s contention that her
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that
after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut
off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.
Issue:
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she
deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Held:
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged
immorality, was dismissed.
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was
imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
2.) EMMA T. DANTES vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES A.C.
No. 6486. September 22, 2004
FACTS:
Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty.
gaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegiti
mate children with them. From the time respondents illicit affairs started, he failed
to give regular support to his wife and their children, thus forcing her to work abr
oad to provide for their children’s needs.
Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and the birth of their children,
but alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eighteen years before after
his wife had abandoned him in their residence. He further asserted that Mrs. Dante
s filed the case just to force him to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her.
Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificat
es of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, all surnamed Dantes, and the affid
avits of his husband and his paramour to prove the fact that he sired three illegitim
ate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women.
ISSUE:
whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the subsistence of marriahe
warrants the disbarment of a lawyer.
RULING:
Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawf
ul, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as t
hat conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to t
he opinion of good and respectable members of the community.To be the basis of
disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly im
moral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipl
ed as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or r
evolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two differe
nt women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes gr
ossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Complain
ants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently e
stablished respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality.
Atty. Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.
3.) COJUANGCO, JR. VS. PALMA
FACTS:
To practice law is a privilege one. It is only for those who can pass the bar
and pass the standards sets- out which are indispensible. One of the requirements
to admit the bar is to have a satisfactory testimonial of good character. Such good
moral character must be maintained throughout his life as a lawyer.
In this case the complainant is a client of Angara Concepcion Regala &
Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA), who assigned the case to Atty. Palma, the respondent.
The former hired the latter as his personal counsel for his business. The same
becomes very close to the family, dine and goes with them abroad. He even
tutored, complainant’s 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa).
On June 22, 1982, respondent married Lisa in Hongkong without the
knowledge of the complainant despite the facts that the former is already married
and with three (3 ) children. Complainant sends his two sons to persuade Lisa to
go home with them, which she did. In the celebration of respondent’s marriage
with Lisa he misrepresented himself as a bachelor.
On August 24, 1982, complainant filed with the Court of First Instance, a
petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage and which was granted.
Subsequently complainant filed a disbarment complaint on the ground of grave
abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Respondent in his answer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of
action. As he contends that complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath.
ISSUE:
WHETHER or not respondent’s acts constitute deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer
that would warrant his disbarment.
RULING:
There is no question that respondent as a lawyer, is well versed in the
law, fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous
marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The
respondent betrayed the trust reposed in him by complainant. He was treated as
part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa.
For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that respondent committed
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it is
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period
of three (3) years and which later lessen to one (1) year.
According to IBP:
“At the outset, it must be stressed that the law profession does not prescribe a
dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private
life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney
at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities
but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the
good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the
subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.”
Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member
of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement.
The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, is that they shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. This is founded on the lawyer’s primordial duty to
society as spelled out in Canon 1 which states:
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
And the suspension of 1 year which is previously 3 years is not
commensurate to the gravity of his offense, thus he is disbarred from the practice
of law.
4.)In re Luis B. Tagorda (1929) (card and letter)
Doctrine: • The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
Facts:
Luis B. Tagorda was an attorney who was elected as the third member of the
provincial board of Isabela. He admits that prior to his election, he made use of a
card2 written in Spanish and Ilocano, which contains a list of tasks he may
undertake as a notary public, and a lawyer, as well as a general invitation to consult
with him for free. Tagorda also admits that after he was elected into office, he wrote
a letter3 to one of his hometown”s barrio lieutenants. The letter basically informed
the recipient of Tagorda”s intention to continue residing in Echague, despite having
to attend board sessions in Ilagan, in order that he may continue to serve his
hometown as a notary public and lawyer. The letter subtly offered information
regarding Tagorda”s office hours, together with an express request that the recipient
spread the word as to his willingness to accept land registration cases for a fee of
P3.00 per title. The government, through the provincial fiscal of Isabela, together
with the Attorney-General, brought this matter to the attention of the Court.
Issue:
1. W/N Tagorda”s actions constitute malpractice
Held/Ratio:
1. YES. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828
expressly provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. This is
in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar
Association in 1917. Canon 27 of the said document provides that a well-merited
reputation serves as a lawyer”s most effective form of advertisement.
5.) Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533
Topics:
“A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.”—Canon 3, Code of
Professional Responsibility
“A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications for legal services.”—Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility
Facts of the Case:
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according
to Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot
afford the services of big law firms.
Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements
which states undignified phrases like-- “Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid
marriage. Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ABSENCE, VISA. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to 6:00pm
7th Floor Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue, Manila.”
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal
Problems in The Philippine Star because it is composed of specialists that can take
care of a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is, especially on marriage
problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.
Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should be
allowed based on this American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is nothing
wrong with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to offer.
Issue:
Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.
Court Ruling:
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond
the domain of the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of law
is only reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to paralegals. As
with the Legal Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that “a lawyer in making known his legal services must use only honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his
goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages
which are undoubtedly contrary to law.
The only allowed form of advertisements would be:
(1.) Citing your involvement in a reputable law list,
(2.) An ordinary professional card (
3.) Phone directory listing without designation to a lawyer’s specialization.
6.) Khan v Simbillo

Facts:
i. Resp Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the PDI and MB his legal
services for annulment cases
ii. Upon investigation by the Pub Info Office, it was confirmed that
Simbillo is offering his services to interested clients.
iii. Ismael Khan, chief of the PIO, filed an administrative charge vs resp
for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
iv. Resp argues that advertising or solicitation is not per se a prohibited
act:
a. Public interest is not served by the absolute prohibition
b. It’s time for the Court to promulgate a ruling that such
advertisement is not contrary to law, public policy and public
order.
v. The IBP found the resp guilty and suspended him from the practice
of law for 1 year, writing it in a resolution
Issues:
W/N resp’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
Yes.
i. Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited
from performing acts designed to solicit legal business and that
he is not permitted to use self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
ii. Practice of Law is not a business. It is a profession with public
interest as the primary duty. It’s not a money-making venture
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.
The duty is to public service and the administration of justice.
Elements that distinguish it from business:
a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-
product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money;
b. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration
of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and
reliability;
c. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
d. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice,
or dealing directly with their clients.
- The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However,
for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the
legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would
bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar
7.) VITRIOLO v. DASIG A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003
Facts:
This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an
official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves
gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath for having used
her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and
reputation of the CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-
ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with this
Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was
OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel
Educational Center in Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal
Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the
amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction
of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from
Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her application
for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She
demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was
subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less
for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED.
Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and
dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED. Respondent’s attempts to
extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office
are violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful,
dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0219
of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private
interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may
be affected by the functions of his office. Respondent’s conduct in office falls short
of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from
one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not
only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and
is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of
Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal
Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three
years’ suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name
shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
8.)Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No. 2505,
February 21 1992
FACTS:
Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was
solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code as marriage of exceptional
character. Both of them kept their marriage a secret until Tabang finishes
his law studies, they had not yet lived as husband and wife.
Tabang, having finished his law studies, declared in his application to take
the bar that he was ―single. After Tabang passed the bar, Leda blocked
him of taking his oath by instituting a complaint, Bar Matter No. 78, that he
acted fraudulently in filling out his application. Thus, Tabang should be
considered as unworthy to take the lawyer‘s oath for lack of good moral
character. Tabang admitted that he legally married Leda but that the
marriage ―was not yet made and declared public so that he could
properly take the Bar exams and ensure their future. Bar Matter No. 78 was
dismissed because Tabang said that it just arose out of misunderstanding
between him and Leda.
Leda, in response to this, instituted the present Administrative Case
praying Tabang‘s disbarment on grounds of using his legal knowledge to
contract an invalid marriage with Leda, misrepresented himself as single,
and for lack of good moral character.
It was found out that the marriage contract was actually void for failure to
comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, or the five-year
minimum cohabitation before celebration of marriage and that they were
both twenty years old when they got married, below the required
minimum age of twenty-one years old.
He contended that he and Leda agreed not to disclose that their
marriage was void from the beginning because he wanted to finish his
studies and take the bar first. He also believed that when he applied for
the Bar, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was single.
ISSUE/S:
WON Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status
HELD:
Yes. Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status.
RATIO:
Tabang‘s declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981
Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a
material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made
answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false
statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from
taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character.

Tabang‘s protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his

status as "single" not only because of his pact with Complainant to keep
the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to Leda was
void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of
merit. Tabang cannot assume that his marriage to Leda is void. The
presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an
exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met
and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been
regularly performed. Tabang is SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further
order.