Leslie Ui vs. Atty.
Irish Bonifacio IN RE CUNANAN
Facts: Lesli Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on
the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, her
(Lesli) husband.
In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Iris attached a photocopy of a
marriage certificate that said that she and Carlos got married in 1985 but according to the
certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State Department of Health, they were
married in 1987.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which
she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Held: NO. The practice of law is a privilege. The bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy
the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar, he must also have a continued
possession of good moral character. A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct ,
which has been defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the good and respectable members of the community. Lawyers,
as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus
must handle their personal affairs with great caution.
Iris Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However the fact remains that
her relationship with Carlos, clothed as it was with what she believed as a valid marriage,
cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the
moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, it must be “grossly immoral”, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree.
A lawyer is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. Her act of distancing herself on her discovery that Carlos was married proves that
she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
On the matter of the falsified marriage certificate, it is contrary to human experience and
highly improbable that she did not know the year of her marriage or she failed to check that
the information on the document she attached to her Answer were correct. Lawyers are called
upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts of malpractice.
FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title
of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any
subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be
included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
ISSUE:
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING:
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the
title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953
to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under
the following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946
to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end
of World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions
of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who
may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to
repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress
under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment
of the court on who can practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to driver forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. Taking pity on the
declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not accused who looked elderly, the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. When he was
revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The about to hit the taxi driver, he hit the accused in the chest then he got up again and was about
same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify
to box the taxi driver but the latter caught his fist and turned his arm around. The accused
rules of admission to the practice of law.
went back to his car and got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a
Zoreta v. Simpliciano handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehicle when he noticed the
eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He picked them up intending to return them to the
FACTS: accused. But as he was handing the same to the accused, he was met by the barrel of the gun
held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the
Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that he filed a complaint for Breach of COntract and accused so the latter pushed him out and sped off.
Damaes against Security Pacific Assurance COrporation (SPAC) dated 22 June 2001 due to the Witness, Antonio Billanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and brought the latter to the
latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle Policy No. 94286, where respondent Atty. hospital sustained a spinal cord injury, which caused paralysis on the left part of his body and
Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the latter’s counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not
disabled him for his job as a taxi driver. Despite positive identification and overwhelming
a dully commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued by teh CLerk of Court of
Quezon City Mercedes S. Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization, as evidenced by evidence, Respondent denied that he had shot Complainant;
presented documents. Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the one mauled by
Complainant and two unidentified persons
ISSUE: Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has not yet (for 4 years) satisfied his
civil liabilities to Complainant, convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide
WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility under the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Whether or not frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude and where ot not guilt warrants
Yes. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath disbarment.
to obey the laws (i.e. Notarial Law). Then, too, b making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath
HELD:
similarly proscribes. “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct, “Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility). The lawyer violates,
YES. DISBARRED.
likewise, Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Moral turpitude has been defined as “everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty,
or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which
Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon
a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.”
FACTS:
Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his brown Toyota Corolla with his wife. Along Abanao
Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
Street, a taxi driver overtook him so he tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a
· Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.
turn. He berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi
A question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances, act of
aggression shown by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he was hit once and his
arm twisted by complainant. Under the circumstances, those were reasonable actions clearly
intended to fend off the lawyer’s assault. He shot the victim when the latter was not in a
position to defend himself. To make matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun
with a handkerchief so as not to leave fingerprints his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. Where their misconduct outside of
their professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their office and
unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, the court may be
justified in suspending or removing them from that office.
Alfredo Bon vs. Atty. Victor S. Ziga and Atty. Antonio A. Arcangel
Facts:
According to the complainant, the Bons signed the Waiver and Quitclaim because
of Atty. Ziga’s representation that the document was merely a withdrawal of a previously
executed Special Power of Attorney. As it turned out, however, the document was a
waiver in favor of Ziga of all the properties which the Bons inherited from their parents
and predecessors-in-interest.
Atty. Arcangel’s part, he explained that assuming that he notarized the Waiver
and Quitclaim in the absence of the signatories, his act is merely a violation of the Notarial
Law but not a ground for disbarment. He further avers that he was able to talk to Maria
Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe, both co-signatories to the document, over the phone. Maria
Bon and Rafael Bon-Canafe allegedly declared that they signed the Waiver and
Quitclaim. The two, in fact, personally delivered the document for notarization in his
office. Thus, he posits that there was substantial compliance with the Notarial Law since a
notary public’s primordial undertaking is merely to ensure that the signatures on a
document are genuine. As long as they are so, the notary public can allegedly take the risk
of notarizing the document although the signatories are not present.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondents fraudulently executed the Waiver and Quitclaim.
Held:
Atty. Ziga, on his part, is not culpable. The fact that Amalia and Angelina Bon are
both high school graduates, while Teresa Bon is a college graduate makes it difficult to
believe that they were deceived into thinking that the contents of the Waiver and
Quitclaim, which is plainly worded, were other than what they themselves could have
easily ascertained from a reading of the document. The complaintagainst him is thus,
dismissed for lack of merit.
Atty. Arcangel, however, in notarizing the Waiver and Quitclaim without requiring
all the persons who executed the document to personally appear before him and
acknowledge that the same is their free act and deed, manifestly breached his duty as a
notary public.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act
as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For
this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyance would be undermined.