PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT GAMING CORPORATION vs. ATTY.

CARANDANG

FACTS'

The respondent, Atty. Carandang, is the president of Bingo Royale, Incorporated (Bingo Royale), a
private corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines. In the course of its operations, Bingo
Royale incurred arrears. Instead of demanding the payment therefor, The CIR allowed Bingo Royale and
respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly installment. Bingo Royale then issued to
CIR twenty four (24) Bank of Commerce checks signed by respondent. However, when the checks were
deposited after the end of each month at the Land Bank, Avenue Branch, Manila, they were all
dishonored by reason of Bingo Royale’s Closed Account. Thus,CIR filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila criminal complaints for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Carandang is liable for serious misconduct and violated the Attorney’s
oath and code of professional responsibility

HELD'

In his Report and Recommendation, Atty. Aguila, the Investigating IBP Commissioner, made the
following findings and observations whether to issue or not checks in favor of a payee is a voluntary act.
It is clearly a choice for an individual, whether in a personal capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so
after assessing and weighing the consequences and risks for doing so. The Code of Professional
Responsibility requires a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and the legal
processes. It also prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful conduct. By issuing the bouncing checks
in blatant violation of B.P . Blg. 22, respondent clearly was irresponsible and displayed lack of concern
for the rights of others nor for the canons of professional responsibility.

LEDA vs TABANG

Facts:

The present Administrative Case No. 2505, which is a Petition for Disbarment, filed on 14 February
1983... on 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The
marriage, solemnized by Judge Jose T. Tavarro of Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of the Civil
Code[1] as one of... exceptional character

The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law
studies (began in 1977), and had taken the Bar examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable
future for them. Com-plainant admits, though, that they had not lived... together as husband and wife
(Letter-Complaint, 6 January 1982).
Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he
declared that he was "single." He then passed the examinations

Issues:

Whether or not respondent shall be held liable for having made use of his legal knowledge to contract
an invalid marriage making a mockery of the marriage institution.

Ruling:

Upon the facts on record, even without testimonial evidence from Complainant, we find Respondent's
lack of good moral character sufficiently established.

Respondent can not assume that his marriage to Complainant 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. Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has
resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious
tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the... court to be misled by any artifice."

Spouses Concepcion v Atty. Elmer dela Rosa

Facts:

This is an administrative case that stemmed from a verified complaint filed by complainants Sps.
Concepcion against respondent Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, charging him with gross misconduct for violating,
among others, Rule 16.04 of the CPR. Complainant alleges that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent
served as their retained lawyer and counsel. Complainants wanted to open their pawnshop business but
did not materialize and Atty. Dela Rosa, as their counsel, knew of the fact that complainants had money
intact form their failed venture, and borrowed money from them in the amount of P2.5M. The checks
were issued and Atty. Dela Rosa photocopied them and verified he received the original checks and that
he promises to pay them within 5 days with an interest of 5%. The checks were personally encased by
him. Atty. Dela Rosa failed to pay and despite numerous demands from the Complainant, did not return
the money. Hence an administrative complaint was filed against him by Sps. Concepcion.

Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

Held: The court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its recommended penalty and its directive
to return the amount of P2.5M, with legal interest to complainants. Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the
CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected. The court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is
one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and
confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his clients is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client.

GACIAS vs. ATTY. BULAUITAN

Facts:

Respondent, Atty. Balauitan sold to the petitioner a portion of his 1,242 square meter land located
atTuguegarao for P322,000.00. Petitioner upon payment of a total P300,000.00 learned that
respondentmortgage the said land compeling the petitioner to demand to the respondent a copy of the
title of theland purchased. Respondent was not able to produce said title compeling the petitioner to
asked for thereturn of total money paid. Respondent was not able to return the money instead their
land purchaseagreement did no push thru because the petitioner failed to pay the total amount. Hence,
petitionerfiled a disbarment case against the respondent for dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Issue:Whether or not respondent acted in violation of the Rule 7.03 of the Code of
professionalResponsibility?

Held:Rule 7.03 of the Code, provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
hisfitness to practice law. Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the complainant involving a
tinyparcel of land, a want of professional honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the moral stuff which he
ismade of. His fitness to continue in the advocacy of law and manage the legal affairs of others are
thusput in serious doubt. ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found guilty of gross misconduct and
dishonesty.

CAMPOS vs CAMPOS

FACTS:

This is a complaint for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed by complainants against
respondent, former Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.Complainant Aida and
respondent were married in 1981 and had two children, complainants Alistair and Charmaine. In 2008,
respondent filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and Aida were both
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Aida denied the
allegations and filed for legal separation. In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the
respondent, to which a certain parcel of registered land might be taken from the their property in the
event of loss. Facts show that the title to such land was kept by respondent in his drawer. When
respondent could not find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the
Register of Deeds who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. Respondent then
registered the title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time.
ISSUE:Is respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct?

HELD:NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only simple
misconduct. First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondent’s alleged relationship with
another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no evidence presented that
respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action
against him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the judge's duty to conduct himself in a way
that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

DANTES vs DANTES

FACTS:

Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty. Dantes purportedly engaged in illicit
relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate 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 abroad 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. Dantes filed the case just to force him to remit 70% of his
monthly salary to her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not having an illicit relationship during the subsistence of marriage warrants the disbarment
of a lawyer.

RULING:

Yes.

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the 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 immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency.

Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the
subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary
evidence, sufficiently established respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Atty.
Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.
BARANDON, JR. V. FERRER, SR.

FACTS:

On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment,
suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent
Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive,
offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document
in court. The said document purported to be a notarized document executed at a date when Atty.
Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying,
“Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na
abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado narito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa
Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.
The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet he
faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines
Norte

ISSUE:

DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ERR IN FINDING
RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS JUSTIFIED?

HELD:

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel. Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon.

The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence
that the document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of
falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer.
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the
adversarial nature of our legal system. Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession at all times. All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are
mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly.