spethics cases canon1

7/23/2019 Spethics Cases Canon1

1/37

CANON 1

A.M. No. 1625 February 12, 1990

ANGEL L. BAUTISTA, complainant,

vs.ATTY. RAMON A. GONALES, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

!ER "URIAM#

In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista on May 1, 1!", respondent #amon

A. $on%ales &as c'arged &it' malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of

la&yer(s oat'. #e)uired by t'is Court to ans&er t'e c'arges against 'im, respondent

filed on *une 1, 1!" a motion for a bill of particulars as+ing t'is Court to order

complainant to amend 'is complaint by ma+ing 'is c'arges more definite. In a

resolution dated *une -, 1!", t'e Court granted respondent(s motion and re)uiredcomplainant to file an amended complaint. On *uly 1, 1!", complainant submitted

an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging t'at respondent committed t'e

follo&ing acts/

1. Accepting a case &'erein 'e agreed &it' 'is clients, namely, Alfaro

0ortunado, Nestor 0ortunado and dit'a 0ortunado 2'ereinafter referred to

as t'e 0ortunados3 to pay all e4penses, including court fees, for a contingent

fee of fifty percent 5678 of t'e value of t'e property in litigation.

. Acting as counsel for t'e 0ortunados in Civil Case No. 9:11;


2/37

1", 1- t'e Court re)uired t'e olicitor $eneral to submit 'is report and

recommendation &it'in t'irty 5'e olicitor $eneral

found t'at respondent committed t'e follo&ing acts of misconduct/

a. transferring to 'imself one:'alf of t'e properties of 'is clients

during t'e pendency of t'e case &'ere t'e properties &ereinvolved=

b. concealing from complainant t'e fact t'at t'e property sub?ect of

t'eir land development agreement 'ad already been sold at a

public auction prior to t'e e4ecution of said agreement= and

c. misleading t'e court by submitting alleged true copies of a

document &'ere t&o signatories &'o 'ad not signed t'e original 5or

even t'e 4ero4 copy8 &ere made to appear as 'aving fi4ed t'eir

signatures 2#eport and #ecommendation of t'e olicitor $eneral,

pp. 1!:1-= #ollo, pp. ;6'e above contention of respondent is untenable. In t'e first place, contrary to

respondent(s claim, reference to t'e IB@ of complaints against la&yers is not

mandatory upon t'e Court 2Galdivar v. andiganbayan, $.#. Nos. !"6:!6!=

Galdivar v. $on%ales, $.#. No. -6!-, October !, 1--3. #eference of complaints to

t'e IB@ is not an e4clusive procedure under t'e terms of #ule 1'e Court s'all

base its final action on t'e case on t'e report and recommendation submitted by t'e

investigating official and t'e evidence presented by t'e parties during t'e

investigation.

econdly, t'ere is no need to refer t'e case to t'e IB@ since at t'e time of t'e

effectivity of #ule 1o

refer t'e case to t'e IB@, as prayed for by t'e respondent, &ill result not only in

duplication of t'e proceedings conducted by t'e olicitor $eneral but also to furt'er

delay in t'e disposition of t'e present case &'ic' 'as lasted for more t'an t'irteen

51


3/37

>'e Court &ill no& address t'e substantive issue of &'et'er or not respondent

committed t'e acts of misconduct alleged by complainant Bautista.

After a careful revie& of t'e record of t'e case and t'e report and recommendation of

t'e olicitor $eneral, t'e Court finds t'at respondent committed acts of misconduct

&'ic' &arrant t'e e4ercise by t'is Court of its disciplinary po&er.

>'e record s'o&s t'at respondent prepared a document entitled >ransfer of #ig'ts

&'ic' &as signed by t'e 0ortunados on August 'e document assigned torespondent one:'alf 51H8 of t'e properties of t'e 0ortunados covered by >C> No. >:

1, &it' an area of 'e land

development agreement &as e4ecuted on August


4/37

certain $ilbert >eodoro &as upon t'e re)uest of complainant and &as understood to

be only provisional. #espondent claims t'at since complainant &as not 'is client, 'e

'ad no duty to &arn complainant of t'e fact t'at t'e land involved in t'eir land

development agreement 'ad been sold at a public auction. Moreover, t'e sale &as

duly annotated at t'e bac+ of >C> No. >:1 and t'is, respondent argues, serves as

constructive notice to complainant so t'at t'ere &as no concealment on 'is part.

>'e above contentions are unmeritorious. ven assuming t'at t'e certificate of sale

&as annotated at t'e bac+ of >C> No. >:1, t'e fact remains t'at respondent failedto inform t'e complainant of t'e sale of t'e land to amauna during t'e negotiations

for t'e land development agreement. In so doing, respondent failed to live up to t'e

rigorous standards of et'ics of t'e la& profession &'ic' place a premium on 'onesty

and condemn duplicitous conduct. >'e fact t'at complainant &as not a former client

of respondent does not e4empt respondent from 'is duty to inform complainant of an

important fact pertaining to t'e land &'ic' is sub?ect of t'eir negotiation. ince 'e &as

a party to t'e land development agreement, respondent s'ould 'ave &arned t'e

complainant of t'e sale of t'e land at a public auction so t'at t'e latter could ma+e a

proper assessment of t'e viability of t'e pro?ect t'ey &ere ?ointly underta+ing. >'is

Court 'as 'eld t'at a la&yer s'ould observe 'onesty and fairness even in 'is private

dealings and failure to do so is a ground for disciplinary action against 'im 2Custodio

v. sto, Adm. Case No. 111. 0ortunado, Nestor >. 0ortunado, and Angel L.

BautistaJ&ere made to appear as 'aving signed t'e original document on ecember

, 1!, as indicated by t'e letters 5$.8 before eac' of t'eir names. Do&ever, it

&as only respondent Alfaro 0ortunado and complainant &'o signed t'e original andduplicate original 54'. 8 and t'e t&o ot'er parties, dit' 0ortunado and Nestor

0ortunado, never did. ven respondent 'imself admitted t'at dit' and Nestor

0ortunado only signed t'e 4ero4 copy 54'. :A8 after respondent &rote t'em on May

;, 1!'e agreement bet&een respondent and t'e 0ortunados, 'o&ever,

does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation e4penses paid by 'im.

An agreement &'ereby an attorney agrees to pay e4penses of proceedings to

enforce t'e client(s rig'ts is c'ampertous 2*B@ Dolding Corp. v. E.. 1"" 0. upp. 'e e4ecution of t'ese contracts violates t'e

fiduciary relations'ip bet&een t'e la&yer and 'is client, for &'ic' t'e former must

incur administrative sanctions.

>'e olicitor $eneral ne4t concludes t'at respondent cannot be 'eld liable for acting

as counsel for usebio Lope%, *r. in Civil Case No. 9:1;6 &'ile acting as counsel

for t'e 0ortunados against t'e same usebio Lope%, *r. in Civil Case No. 9:11;'e Court, after considering t'e record, agrees &it' t'e olicitor $eneral(s findings on

t'e matter. >'e evidence presented by respondent s'o&s t'at 'is acceptance of Civil

Case No. 9:1;6 &as &it' t'e +no&ledge and consent of t'e 0ortunados. >'e

affidavit e4ecuted by t'e 0ortunados on *une


5/37

", Canons of @rofessional t'ics= Canon 1, #ule 1.6'e

determination of t'e validity of t'e complaint in Civil Case No. 9:1-6"6 &as left to t'e

Court of 0irst Instance of 9ue%on City &'ere t'e case &as pending resolution.

>'e Court agrees &it' t'e above findings of t'e olicitor $eneral, and accordingly'olds t'at t'ere is no basis for 'olding t'at t'e respondent(s sole purpose in filing t'e

aforementioned cases &as to 'arass complainant.

$rounds ", - and alleged in t'e complaint need not be discussed separately since

t'e above discussion on t'e ot'er grounds sufficiently cover t'ese remaining

grounds.

>'e Court finds clearly establis'ed in t'is case t'at on four counts t'e respondent

violated t'e la& and t'e rules governing t'e conduct of a member of t'e legal

profession. &orn to assist in t'e administration of ?ustice and to up'old t'e rule of

la&, 'e 'as miserably failed to live up to t'e standards e4pected of a member of t'e

Bar. 2Artiaga v. illanueva, Adm. Matter No. 1-, *uly , 1--, 1"< C#A "*::!6", entitled !%po Almodiel Atien'a v. (%dge )rancisco

). *rillantes$ (r.213>'e decretal portion of our resolution inAtien'areads/

KD#0O#, respondent is IMI from t'e service &it' forfeiture of all leave

and retirement benefits and &it' pre?udice to reappointment in any branc',

instrumentality or agency of t'e government, including government:o&ned and

controlled corporations. >'is decision is immediately e4ecutory.

O O##.23

#espondents dismissal in t'e aforesaid case &as ordered after 'e &as found

guilty of $ross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety during 'is incumbency as

presiding ?udge of t'e Metropolitan >rial Court, Branc' 6, Manila.

@etitioner no& avers t'at respondent violated our decree of perpetual

dis)ualification imposed upon 'im from assuming any post in government service,

including any posts in government:o&ned and controlled corporations, &'en 'e

accepted a legal consultancy post at t'e Local Kater Etilities Administration 5LKEA8,

from 1- to 666. aid consultancy included an appointment by LKEA as

"t'member of t'e Board of irectors of t'e Erdaneta 5@angasinan8 Kater

istrict. Epon e4piration of t'e legal consultancy agreement, t'is &as subse)uently

rene&ed as a pecial Consultancy Agreement.

@etitioner contends t'at &'ile bot' consultancy agreements contained a proviso

to t'e effect t'at not'ing t'erein s'ould be construed as establis'ing an employer:employee relations'ip bet&een LKEA and respondent, t'e inclusion of t'is proviso

&as only a ploy to circumvent our order barring respondent from appointment to a

government agency. @etitioner points out in reality, respondent en?oys t'e same rig'ts

and privileges as a regular employee, to &it/2ravel +ept by LKEAs $eneral ervices ivision23and #eport of >ravel

accomplis'ed by respondent 'imself=2"3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn1


6/37

rustees as evidenced by t'e

minutes of suc' meetings=2163and

!. #eceipt of @roductivity Incentive Bonus in 1.

@etitioner submits t'at all of t'e foregoing constitute deceitful conduct, gross

misconduct, and &illful disobedience to a decree of t'is Court, and s'o& t'at

respondent is unfit to be a member of t'e Bar.

In 'is comment,2113 respondent admits t'e e4istence of t'e Legal Consultancy

Contract as &ell as t'e pecial Consultancy Contract.Do&ever, 'e raises t'e

affirmative defense t'at under Civil ervice Commission 5CC8 Memorandum

Circular No. !, eries of 1 Committee. Also, respondents

continuous receipt of 'onoraria for sitting as a member of certain LKEA Committees,

particularly t'e BO> Committee, belies 'is claim t'at 'e is a mere consultant for t'e

LKEA. >'e evidence on record clearly s'o&s t'at t'e LKEA Office Order

implementing National Compensation Circular No. !: 21"3refers to payments of

'onoraria to officialsHemployees in consideration of services rendered.

Most telling, in our vie&, is respondents acceptance of 'is 1- @roductivity

Incentive Bonus 5@IB8. >'e Board of >rustees #esolution No. ", eries of 1, of

t'e LKEA,21!3&'ic' governed t'e release of t'e @IB, limited t'e entitlement to said

bonus only to officials and employees 5permanent, temporary, casual, or contractual8

of LKEA.

In sum, &e find t'at for all intents and purposes, respondent performed duties

and functions of a non:advisory nature, &'ic' pertain to a contractual employee ofLKEA. As stated by petitioner in 'is reply,21-3 t'ere is a difference bet&een
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn18


7/37

a consultant 'ired on a contractual basis 5&'ic' is governed by CC M.C. No. !, s.

1'at duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to t'e legal

orders of t'e courts. #espondents disobedience to t'is Courts order pro'ibiting 'is

reappointment to any branc', instrumentality, or agency of government, including

government o&ned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal

consultancy or a special consultancy contract. By performing duties and functions of a

contractual employee of LKEA, by &ay of a consultancy, and receiving compensation

and per)uisites as suc', 'e displayed acts of open defiance of t'e Courts

aut'or ity, and a deliberate re?ection of 'is oat' as an officer of t'e court. It is also

destructive of t'e 'armonious relations t'at s'ould prevail bet&een Benc' and Bar, a

'armony necessary for t'e proper administration of ?ustice. uc' defiance not only

erodes respect for t'e Court but also corrodes public confidence in t'e rule of la&.

K'at aggravates respondents offense is t'e fact t'at respondent is no ordinary

la&yer. Daving served in t'e ?udiciary for eig't 5-8 years, 'e is very &ell a&are of t'e

standards of moral fitness for members'ip in t'e legal profession. Dis propensity to

try to get a&ay &it' an indiscretion becomes apparent and ine4cusable &'en 'e

entered into a legal consultancy contract &it' t'e LKEA. @er'aps reali%ing its o&n

mista+e, LKEA terminated said contract &it' respondent, but t'en proceeded to give

'im a special consultancy. >'is travesty could not be long 'idden from public

a&areness, 'ence t'e instant complaint for disbarment filed by petitioner. $iven t'e

factual circumstances found by Commission on Bar iscipline, &e 'ave no 'esitance

in accepting t'e recommendation of t'e Board of $overnors, Integrated Bar of t'e

@'ilippines, t'at respondent be fined and suspended from t'e practice of la&. >'eCode of @rofessional #esponsibility, #ule 1.61, provides t'at a la&yer s'all not

engage in unla&ful, dis'onest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 0or violating t'e Code as

&ell as transgressing 'is oat' as an officer of t'e court, 'is suspension for one 518

year and a fine of ten t'ousand 5@16,6668 pesos are in order.

EREFORE, respondent Atty. 0rancisco Brillantes, *r., is found liable for

'aving &illfully violated a la&ful order of t'is Court in our decision of Marc'

, 1 rendered in A.M. No. M>*::!6", entitled !%po Almodiel Atien'a vs. (%dge

)rancisco ). *rillantes$ (r.De is 'ereby E@N from t'e practice of la& for one

518 year and ordered to pay a 0IN of >en >'ousand 5@16,666.668 @esos, &it' a

>#N KA#NIN$ t'at a repetition of t'e same or similar conduct s'all be dealt &it'

more severely. Let a copy of t'is ecision be furnis'ed to t'e Bar Confidant and t'e

Integrated Bar of t'e @'ilippines and spread on t'e personal records of respondent

as &ell as circulated to all courts in t'e @'ilippines. >'is decision is immediately

e4ecutory.

SO OR+ERE+.

A.M. No. 1607 Au8u- 1, 1971

MAG+ALENA T. AR"IGA complainant,

vs.SEGUN+INO +. MANIANG respondent.

Magdalena >. Arciga in 'er complaint of 0ebruary ;, 1!" as+ed for t'e disbarment

of la&yer egundino . Mani&ang 5admitted to t'e Bar in 1! 8 on t'e ground of

grossly immoral conduct because 'e refused to fulfill 'is promise of marriage to 'er.

>'eir illicit relations'ip resulted in t'e birt' on eptember ;, 1!< of t'eir c'ild,

Mic'ael ino Mani&ang.

Magdalena and egundino got ac)uainted sometime in October, 1!6 at Cebu City.

Magdalena &as t'en a medical tec'nology student in t'e Cebu Institute of Medicine&'ile egundino &as a la& student in t'e an *ose #ecoletos College. >'ey became

s&eet'earts but &'en Magdalena refused to 'ave a tryst &it' egundino in a motel in

*anuary, 1!1, egundino stopped visiting 'er.

>'eir pat's crossed again during a alentine(s ay party in t'e follo&ing mont'. >'ey

rene&ed t'eir relations'ip. After t'ey 'ad dinner one nig't in Marc', 1!1 and finding

t'emselves alone 5li+e Adam and ve8 in 'er boarding 'ouse since t'e ot'er

boarders 'ad gone on vacation, t'ey 'ad se4ual congress. K'en egundino as+ed

Magdalena &'y s'e 'ad refused 'is earlier proposal to 'ave se4ual intercourse &it'

'im, s'e ?o+ingly said t'at s'e &as in love &it' anot'er man and t'at s'e 'ad a c'ild

&it' still anot'er man. egundino remar+ed t'at even if t'at be t'e case, 'e did notmind because 'e loved 'er very muc'.

>'ereafter, t'ey 'ad repeated acts of co'abitation. egundino started telling 'is

ac)uaintances t'at 'e and Magdalena &ere secretly married.

In 1! egundino transferred 'is residence to @adada, avao del ur. De continued

'is la& studies in avao City. .Magdalena remained in Cebu. De sent to 'er letters

and telegrams professing 'is love for 'er 54'. to G8.

K'en Magdalena discovered in *anuary, 1!< t'at s'e &as pregnant, s'e and

egundino &ent to 'er 'ometo&n, Ivisan, Capi%, to apprise Magdalena(s parents t'at

t'ey &ere married alt'oug' t'ey &ere not really so. egundino convinced
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5305.htm#_ftn19


8/37

Magdalena(s fat'er to 'ave t'e c'urc' &edding deferred until after 'e 'ad passed t'e

bar e4aminations. De secured 'is birt' certificate preparatory to applying for a

marriage license.

egundino continued sending letters to Magdalena &'erein 'e e4pressed 'is love

and concern for t'e baby in Magdalena(s &omb. De reassured 'er time and again

t'at 'e &ould marry 'er once 'e passed t'e bar e4aminations. De &as not present

&'en Magdalena gave birt' to t'eir c'ild on eptember ;, 1!< in t'e Cebu

Community Dospital. De &ent to Cebu in ecember, 1!< for t'e baptism of 'is c'ild.

egundino passed t'e bar e4aminations. >'e results &ere released on April , 1!.

everal days after 'is oat':ta+ing, &'ic' Magdalena also attended, 'e stopped

corresponding &it' Magdalena. 0earing t'at t'ere &as somet'ing amiss, Magdalena

&ent to avao in *uly, 1! to contact 'er lover. egundino told 'er t'at t'ey could

not get married for lac+ of money. 'e &ent bac+ to Ivisan.

In ecember, 1! s'e made anot'er trip to avao but failed to see egundino &'o

&as t'en in Malaybalay, Bu+idnon. 'e follo&ed 'im t'ere only to be told t'at t'eir

marriage could not ta+e place becausehe had married "rlinda Angon November ,

1!. 'e &as bro+en:'earted &'en s'e returned to avao.

egundino follo&ed 'er t'ere and inflicted p'ysical in?uries upon 'er because s'e

'ad a confrontation &it' 'is &ife, rlinda Ang. 'e reported t'e assault to t'e

commander of t'e @adada police station and secured medical treatment in a 'ospital

54'. I and *8.

egundino admits in 'is ans&er t'at 'e and Magdalena &ere lovers and t'at 'e is t'e

fat'er of t'e c'ild Mic'ael. De also admits t'at 'e repeatedly promised to marry

Magdalena and t'at 'e breac'ed t'at promise because of Magdalena(s s'ady past.

'e 'ad allegedly been accused in court of oral defamation and 'ad already an

illegitimate c'ild before Mic'ael &as born.

>'e olicitor $eneral recommends t'e dismissal of t'e case. In 'is opinion,

respondent(s co'abitation &it' t'e complainant and 'is reneging on 'is promise of

marriage do not &arrant 'is disbarment.

An applicant for admission to t'e bar s'ould 'ave good moral c'aracter. De is

re)uired to produce before t'is Court satisfactory evidence of good moral c'aracter

and t'at no c'arges against 'im, involving moral turpitude, 'ave been filed or are

pending in any court.

If good moral c'aracter is a sine +%a nonfor admission to t'e bar, t'en t'e continued

possession of good moral c'aracter is also a re)uisite for retaining members'ip in t'e

legal profession. Members'ip in t'e bar may be terminated &'en a la&yer ceases to

'ave good moral c'aracter 5#oyong vs. Oblena, 11! @'il. -"8.

A la&yer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of 'is conviction

of a crime involving moral turpitude. A member of t'e bar s'ould 'ave moral integrity

in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state &it' precision and to fi4 an infle4ible standard as to &'at is

grossly immoral conduct or to specify t'e moral delin)uency and obli)uity &'ic'render a la&yer un&ort'y of continuing as a member of t'e bar. >'e rule implies t'at

&'at appears to be unconventional be'avior to t'e straig't:laced may not be t'e

immoral conduct t'at &arrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct 'as been defined as t'at conduct &'ic' is &illful, flagrant, or

s'ameless, and &'ic' s'o&s a moral indifference to t'e opinion of t'e good and

respectable members of t'e community 5! C.*.. 8.

K'ere an unmarried female d&arf possessing t'e intellect of a c'ild became

pregnant by reason of intimacy &it' a married la&yer &'o &as t'e fat'er of si4

c'ildren, disbarment of t'e attorney on t'e ground of immoral conduct &as ?ustified5In re Dic+s 6 @ac. nd -"8.

>'ere is an area &'ere a la&yer(s conduct may not be inconsonance &it' t'e canons

of t'e moral code but 'e is not sub?ect to disciplinary action because 'is misbe'avior

or deviation from t'e pat' of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection

&it' a la&yer(s be'avior to t'e opposite se4 &'ere t'e )uestion of immorality usually

arises. K'et'er a la&yer(s se4ual congress &it' a &oman not 'is &ife or &it'out t'e

benefit of marriage s'ould be c'aracteri%ed as grossly immoral conduct, &ill depend

on t'e surrounding circumstances.

>'is Court in a decision rendered in 1, &'en old:fas'ioned morality still prevailed,

observed t'at t'e legislator &ell +no&s t'e frailty of t'e fles' and t'e ease &it' &'ic'

a man, &'ose sense of dignity, 'onor and morality is not &ell cultivated, falls into

temptation &'en alone &it' one of t'e fair se4 to&ard &'om 'e feels 'imself

attracted. An occasion is so inducive to sin or crime t'at t'e saying A fair booty

ma+es many a t'ief or An open door may tempt a saint 'as become general.

5@eople vs. e la Cru%, ;- @'il.


9/37

se4ual intercourse= 'e married anot'er &oman and during irginia(s pregnancy,

Lope% urged 'er to ta+e pills to 'asten t'e flo& of 'er menstruation and 'e tried to

convince 'er to 'ave an abortion to &'ic' s'e did not agree. 5Almire% vs. Lope%,

Administrative Case No. ;-1, 0ebruary -, 1", ! C#A 1". ee armiento vs.

Cui, 166 @'il. 1168.

58 K'ere la&yer 0rancisco Agustin made Anita Cabrera believe t'at t'ey &ere

married before Leoncio . Aglubat in t'e City Dall of Manila, and, after suc' fa+e

marriage, t'ey co'abited and s'e later give birt' to t'eir c'ild 5Cabrera vs. Agustin,16" @'il. "8.

5'ey indulged in fre)uent se4ual intercourse. 'e &rote to 'im in

16 and 11 several letters ma+ing reference to t'eir trysts in 'otels.

On letter in 11 contain e4pressions of suc' a 'ig'ly sensual, tantali%ing and vulgar

nature as to render t'em un)uotable and to impart t'e firm conviction t'at, because

of t'e close intimacy bet&een t'e complainant and t'e respondent, s'e felt norestraint &'atsoever in &riting to 'im &it' impudicity.

According to t'e complainant, t&o c'ildren &ere born as a conse)uence of 'er long

intimacy &it' t'e respondent. In 1, s'e filed a complaint for disbarment against

illanueva.

>'is Court found t'at respondent(s refusal to marry t'e complainant &as not so

corrupt nor unprincipled as to &arrant disbarment. 5ee Montana vs. #uado,

Administrative Case No. 6!, 0ebruary ;, 1!, " C#A


10/37

an action for partition of t'e estate of t'e late Ben?amin Fap 5Civil Case No. ;-"

before t'e #egional >rial Court of A+lan8. >'eir agreement &as reflected in a

letterdated August 11, 1. Do&ever, respondent failed to pay 'im t'e agreed

commission not&it'standing receipt of attorney(s fees amounting to 1!7 of t'e total

estate or about @ ;6 million. Instead, 'e &as informed t'roug' a letter'e IB@ Board of $overnors adopted

and approved t'e same in its #esolution No. I:616:;'e practice of la& is considered a privilege besto&ed by t'e tate on t'ose &'o

s'o& t'at t'ey possess and continue to possess t'e legal )ualifications for t'e

profession. As suc', la&yers are e4pected to maintain at all times a 'ig' standard of

legal proficiency, morality, 'onesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform t'eir

four:fold duty to society, t'e legal profession, t'e courts and t'eir clients, inaccordance &it' t'e values and norms embodied in t'e Code.11La&yers may, t'us,

be disciplined for any conduct t'at is &anting of t'e above standards &'et'er in t'eir

professional or in t'eir private capacity.

In t'e present case, respondent(s defense t'at forgery 'ad attended t'e e4ecution of

t'e August 11, 1 letter &as belied by 'is *uly 1", 1! letter admitting to 'ave

underta+en t'e payment of complainant(s commission but passing on t'e

responsibility to ps. Fap. Clearly, respondent 'as violated #ule .6,1Canon of

t'e Code &'ic' pro'ibits a la&yer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal

services &it' persons not licensed to practice la&, e4cept in certain cases &'ic' donot obtain in t'e case at bar.

0urt'ermore, respondent did not deny t'e accusation t'at 'e abandoned 'is legal

family to co'abit &it' 'is mistress &it' &'om 'e begot four c'ildren not&it'standing

t'at 'is moral c'aracter as &ell as 'is moral fitness to be retained in t'e #oll of

Attorneys 'as been assailed. >'e settled rule is t'at betrayal of t'e marital vo& of

fidelity or se4ual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as

it manifests deliberate disregard of t'e sanctity of marriage and t'e marital vo&s

protected by t'e Constitution and affirmed by our la&s.1


11/37

Let copies of t'is #esolution be entered in t'e personal record of respondent as a

member of t'e @'ilippine Bar and furnis'ed t'e Office of t'e Bar Confidant, t'e

Integrated Bar of t'e @'ilippines and t'e Office of t'e Court Administrator for

circulation to all courts in t'e country.

O O##.


12/37

A.M. No. %29 No4eber 29, 1979

SAL>A"ION +ELIO "OR+O>A, complainant,

vs.

ATTY. LAUREN"E +. "OR+O>A, respondent.

# O L E > I O N

!ER "URIAM#

In an uns&orn letter:complaint dated 1; April 1-- addressed to t'en Mr. C'ief

*ustice Claudio >ee'an+ee, complainant alvacion eli%o c'arged 'er 'usband, Atty.

Laurence . Cordova, &it' immorality and acts unbecoming a member of t'e Bar.

>'e letter:complaint &as for&arded by t'e Court to t'e Integrated Bar of t'e

@'ilippines, Commission on Bar iscipline 5Commission8, for investigation, report

and recommendation.

>'e Commission, before acting on t'e complaint, re)uired complainant to submit a

verified complaint &it'in ten 5168 days from notice. Complainant complied and

submitted to t'e Commission on ! eptember 1-- a revised and verified version of'er long and detailed complaint against 'er 'usband c'arging 'im &it' immorality

and acts unbecoming a member of t'e Bar.

In an Order of t'e Commission dated 1 ecember 1--, respondent &as declared in

default for failure to file an ans&er to t'e complaint &it'in fifteen 518 days from

notice. >'e same Order re)uired complainant to submit before t'e Commission 'er

evidence e& parte, on 1" ecember 1--. Epon t'e telegrap'ic re)uest of

complainant for t'e resetting of t'e 1" ecember 1-- 'earing, t'e Commission

sc'eduled anot'er 'earing on *anuary 1-. >'e 'earing sc'eduled for

*anuary 1- &as resc'eduled t&o 58 more times:first, for 0ebruary 1- and

second, for 16 and 11 April 1-. >'e 'earings never too+ place as complainant

failed to appear. #espondent Cordova never moved to set aside t'e order of default,

even t'oug' notices of t'e 'earings sc'eduled &ere sent to 'im.

In a telegrap'ic message dated " April 1-, complainant informed t'e Commission

t'at s'e and 'er 'usband 'ad already reconciled. In an order dated 1! April 1-,

t'e Commission re)uired t'e parties 5respondent and complainant8 to appear before

it for confirmation and e4planation of t'e telegrap'ic message and re)uired t'em to

file a formal motion to dismiss t'e complaint &it'in fifteen 518 days from notice.

Neit'er party responded and not'ing &as 'eard from eit'er party since t'en.

Complainant 'aving failed to submit 'er evidence e& partebefore t'e Commission,

t'e IB@ Board of $overnors submitted to t'is Court its report reprimandingrespondent for 'is acts, admonis'ing 'im t'at any furt'er acts of immorality in t'e

future &ill be dealt &it' more severely, and ordering 'im to support 'is legitimate

family as a responsible parent s'ould.

>'e findings of t'e IB@ Board of $overnors may be summed up as follo&s/

Complainant and respondent Cordova &ere married on " *une 1!" and out of t'is

marriage, t&o 58 c'ildren &ere born. In 1-, t'e couple lived some&'ere in 9uirino

@rovince. In t'at year, respondent Cordova left 'is family as &ell as 'is ?ob as Branc'

Cler+ of Court of t'e #egional >rial Court, Cabarroguis, 9uirino @rovince, and &ent toMangagoy, Bislig, urigao del ur &it' one 0ely $. Dolgado. 0ely $. Dolgado &as

'erself married and left 'er o&n 'usband and c'ildren to stay &it' respondent.

#espondent Cordova and 0ely $. Dolgado lived toget'er in Bislig as 'usband and

&ife, &it' respondent Cordova introducing 0ely to t'e public as 'is &ife, and 0ely

Dolgado using t'e name 0ely Cordova. #espondent Cordova gave 0ely Dolgado

funds &it' &'ic' to establis' a sari:sari store in t'e public mar+et at Bislig, &'ile at

t'e same time failing to support 'is legitimate family.

On " April 1-", respondent Cordova and 'is complainant &ife 'ad an apparent

reconciliation. #espondent promised t'at 'e &ould separate from 0ely Dolgado and

broug't 'is legitimate family to Bislig, urigao del ur. #espondent &ould, 'o&ever,

fre)uently come 'ome from beer'ouses or cabarets, drun+, and continued to neglect

t'e support of 'is legitimate family. In 0ebruary 1-!, complainant found, upon

returning from a trip to Manila necessitated by 'ospitali%ation of 'er daug'ter Loraine,

t'at respondent Cordova &as no longer living &it' 'er 5complainant(s8 c'ildren in t'eir

con?ugal 'ome= t'at respondent Cordova &as living &it' anot'er mistress, one Luisita

Magallanes, and 'ad ta+en 'is younger daug'ter Melanie along &it' 'im.

#espondent and 'is ne& mistress 'id Melanie from t'e complinant, compelling

complainant to go to court and to ta+e bac+ 'er daug'ter byhabeas corp%s. >'e

#egional >rial Court, Bislig, gave 'er custody of t'eir c'ildren.

Not&it'standing respondent(s promises to reform, 'e continued to live &it' Luisita

Magallanes as 'er 'usband and continued to fail to give support to 'is legitimatefamily.

0inally t'e Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant,

stating t'at complainant and respondent 'ad been reconciled &it' eac' ot'er.

After a revie& of t'e record, &e agree &it' t'e findings of fact of t'e IB@ Board. Ke

also agree t'at t'e most recent reconciliation bet&een complainant and respondent,

assuming t'e same to be real, does not e4cuse and &ipe a&ay t'e misconduct and

immoral be'avior of t'e respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely

reflecting upon 'im as a member of t'e Bar and upon t'e @'ilippine Bar itself. An

applicant for admission to members'ip in t'e bar is re)uired to s'o& t'at 'e ispossessed of good moral c'aracter. >'at re)uirement is not e4'austed and


13/37

dispensed &it' upon admission to members'ip of t'e bar. On t'e contrary, t'at

re)uirement persists as a continuing condition for members'ip in t'e Bar in good

standing.

In Mortel v. Aspiras$1t'is Court, follo&ing t'e rule in t'e Enited tates, 'eld t'at t'e

continued possession ... of a good moral c'aracter is a re)uisite condition for t'e

rig'tful continuance in t'e practice of t'e la& ... and its loss re)uires suspension or

disbarment, even t'oug' t'e statutes do not specify t'at as a ground for disbarment.

2

It is important to note t'at t'e lac+ of moral c'aracter t'at &e 'ere refer to asessential is not limited to good moral c'aracter relating to t'e disc'arge of t'e duties

and responsibilities of an attorney at la&. >'e moral delin)uency t'at affects t'e

fitness of a member of t'e bar to continue as suc' includes conduct t'at outrages t'e

generally accepted moral standards of t'e community, conduct for instance, &'ic'

ma+es a moc+ery of t'e inviolable social institution or marriage. %In Mortel, t'e

respondent being already married, &ooed and &on t'e 'eart of a single, 1:year old

teac'er &'o subse)uently co'abited &it' 'im and bore 'im a son. Because

respondent(s conduct in Mortel &as particularly morally repulsive, involving t'e

marrying of 'is mistress to 'is o&n son and t'ereafter co'abiting &it' t'e &ife of 'is

o&n son after t'e marriage 'e 'ad 'imself arranged, respondent &as disbarred.

In Royong v. Oblena$t'e respondent &as declared unfit to continue as a member of

t'e bar by reason of 'is immoral conduct and accordingly disbarred. De &as found to

'ave engaged in se4ual relations &it' t'e complainant &'o conse)uently bore 'im a

son= and to 'ave maintained for a number of years an adulterous relations'ip &it'

anot'er &oman.

In t'e instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about t&o 58 years an

adulterous relations'ip &it' a married &oman not 'is &ife, in full vie& of t'e general

public, to t'e 'umiliation and detriment of 'is legitimate family &'ic' 'e, rubbing salt

on t'e &ound, failed or refused to support. After a brief period of reform respondent

too+ up again &it' anot'er &oman not 'is &ife, co'abiting &it' 'er and bringing along

'is young daug'ter to live &it' t'em. Clearly, respondent flaunted 'is disregard of t'efundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before 'is o&n

daug'ter and t'e community at large.

KD#0O#, t'e Court #esolved to E@N respondent from t'e practice of la&

indefinitely and until fart'er orders from t'is Court. >'e Court &ill consider lifting 'is

suspension &'en respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to t'e Commission

and t'is Court t'at 'e 'as and continues to provide for t'e support of 'is legitimate

family and t'at 'e 'as given up t'e immoral course of conduct t'at 'e 'as clung to.

)ernan$ .(.$ Narvasa$ G%tierre'$ (r.$ r%'$ /aras$ )eliciano$ Gancayco$ /adilla$

*idin$ #armiento$

EN BAN"

RE# S" +E"ISION +ATE+ A.". No. (90MAY 20, 2007 IN G.R. NO. 16155UN+ER RULE 1%9;B OF TERULES OF "OURT, @resent/ATTY. RO+OLFO +. !A"TOLIN,#espondent. @romulgated/April ;, 614 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4DECISION!ER "URIAM/

>'is case resolves t'e )uestion of &'et'er or not t'e conviction of a la&yer

for a crime involving moral turpitude constitutes sufficient ground for 'is disbarment

from t'e practice of la& under ection !, #ule 1


14/37

Aggrieved, 0erraren filed &it' t'e andiganbayan in Criminal Case "" a

complaint against Atty. @actolin for falsification of public document.213On November

1, 66< t'e andiganbayan found Atty. @actolin guilty of falsification under Article

1! and sentenced 'im to t'e indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of years and ;

mont's ofprisioncorreccionalas minimum to ; years, mont's and 16 days

ofprisioncorreccionalas ma4imum, to suffer all t'e accessory penalties

ofprisioncorreccional, and to pay a fine of @,666.66, &it' subsidiary imprisonment

in case of insolvency.

Atty. @actolin appealed to t'is Court but on May 6, 66- it affirmed 'is

conviction.23ince t'e Court treated t'e matter as an administrative complaint against

'im as &ell under #ule 1'is Courts decision in said falsification case 'ad long become final and

e4ecutory. In In Re0 1isbarment of Rodolfo /a2o,2!3t'e Court 'eld t'at in disbarment

cases, it is no longer called upon to revie& t'e ?udgment of conviction &'ic' 'as

become final.>'e revie& of t'e conviction no longer rests upon t'is Court.

Ender ection !, #ule 1


15/37

Dere, Atty. @actolins disbarment is &arranted. >'e andiganbayan 'as

confirmed t'at alt'oug' 'is culpability for falsification 'as been indubitably

establis'ed, 'e 'as not yet served 'is sentence. Dis conduct only e4acerbates 'is

offense and s'o&s t'at 'e falls s'ort of t'e e4acting standards e4pected of 'im as a

vanguard of t'e legal profession.213

>'is Court once again reminds all la&yers t'at t'ey, of all classes and

professions, are most sacredly bound to up'old t'e la&. 21'e privilege to practice

la& is besto&ed only upon individuals &'o are competent intellectually, academically

and, e)ually important, morally. As suc', la&yers must at all times conduct

t'emselves, especially in t'eir dealings &it' t'eir clients and t'e public at large, &it'

'onesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproac'.21;3

EREFORE, Atty. #odolfo . @actolin is 'ereby +ISBARRE+ and 'is

name REMO>E+from t'e #olls of Attorney.Let a copy of t'is decision be attac'ed to

'is personal records and furnis'ed t'e Office of t'e Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of

t'e@'ilippines and t'e Office of t'e Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in

t'e country.

SO OR+ERE+.N BANC

A?r/3 (, 1922

I Re MAR"ELINO LONTO:

Ramon 1io3no for respondent.Attorney4General 5illa4Real for the Government.

MAL"OLM, J.:

>'e Attorney:$eneral as+s t'at an order issue for t'e removal of Marcelino Lonto+

from 'is office of la&yer in t'e @'ilippine Islands, because of 'aving been convicted

of t'e crime of bigamy. >'e respondent la&yer, in ans&er, prays t'at t'e c'arges be

dismissed, and bases 'is plea principally on a pardon issued to 'im by former

$overnor:$eneral Darrison.

Marcelino Lonto+ &as convicted by t'e Court of 0irst Instance of Gambales of t'ecrime of bigamy. >'is ?udgement &as affirmed on appeal to t'e upreme Court, &'ile

a furt'er attempt to get t'e case before t'e Enited tates upreme Court &as

unsuccessful. On 0ebruary , 11, a pardon &as issued by t'e $overnor:$eneral of

t'e follo&ing tenor/

By virtue of t'e aut'ority conferred upon me by t'e @'ilippine Organic Act on

August , 11", t'e sentence in t'e case of Marcelino !onto3 convicted by

t'e Court of 0irst Instance of Gambales of bigamy and sentenced on

0ebruary !, 11-, to imprisonment for eig't years, to suffer t'e accessory

penalties prescribed by la&, and to pay t'e costs of t'e proceedings, &'ic'sentence &as, on eptember -, 11, confirmed by t'e upreme Court is

'ereby remitted, on condition t'at 'e s'all not again be guilty of any

misconduct.

>'e particular provision of t'e Code of Civil @rocedure, upon &'ic' t'e Attorney:

$eneral relies in as+ing for t'e disbarment of Attorney Lonto+, provides t'at a

member of t'e bar may be removed or suspended form 'is office of la&yer by t'e

upreme Court by reason of 'is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

5ec. 18 >'at conviction of t'e crime of bigamy involves moral turpitude, &it'in t'e

meaning of t'e la&, cannot be doubted. >'e debatable )uestion relates to t'e effect

of t'e pardon by t'e $overnor:$eneral. On t'e one 'and, it is contended by t'e

$overnment t'at &'ile t'e pardon removes t'e legal infamy of t'e crime, it cannot

&as' out t'e moral stain= on t'e ot'er 'and, it is contended by t'e respondent t'at

t'e pardon reac'es t'e offense for &'ic' 'e &as convicted and blots it out so t'at 'e

may not be loo+ed upon as guilty of it.

>'e cases are not altoget'er clear as to ?ust &'at effect a pardon 'as on t'e rig't of a

court of disbar an attorney for conviction of a felony. On close e4amination, 'o&ever,

it &ill be found t'at t'e apparent conflict in t'e decisions is more apparent t'an real,

and arises from differences in t'e nature of t'e c'arges on &'ic' t'e proceedings to

disbar are based. K'ere preceedings to stri+e an attorney(s name from t'e rolls are

founded on, and depend alone, on a statute ma+ing t'e fact of a conviction for a

felony ground for disbarment, it 'as been 'eld t'at a pardon operates to &ipe out t'econviction and is a bar to any proceeding for t'e disbarment of t'e attorney after t'e

pardon 'as been granted. 5In re mmons 2113, Cal. App., 11= cott vs. tate

21-;3, " >e4. Civ. App.,


16/37

>'e celebrated case of "& parte $arland 21-""3, ; Kall., 'e

petitioner in t'is case applied for a license to practice la& in t'e Enited tates courts,

&it'out first ta+ing an oat' to t'e effect t'at 'e 'ad never voluntarily given aid to any

government 'ostile to t'e Enited tates, as re)uired by statute. >'e petitioner, it

seems, 'ad been a member of t'e Conferate Congress, during t'e secession of t'e

out', but 'ad been pardons by t'e @resident of t'e Enited tates. It &as 'eld, buy a

divided court, t'at to e4clude t'e petitioner from t'e practice of la& for t'e offense

named &ould be to enforce a punis'ment for t'e offense, not&it'standing t'e pardon

&'ic' t'e court 'ad no rig't to do= and t'e opinion of t'e court, in part, said/

A pardon reac'es bot' t'e punis'ment prescribed for t'e offense and t'e

guilt of t'e offender= and &'en t'e pardon is full, it releases t'e punis'ment

and blots out of e4istence t'e guilt, so t'at in t'e eye of t'e la& t'e offender

is an innocent as if 'e 'ad never committed t'e offense. If granted before

conviction, it prevents any of t'e penalties and disabilities, conse)uent upon

conviction, from attac'ing= if granted after conviction, it removes t'e

penalties and disabilities, and restores 'im to all 'is civil rig'ts= it ma+es 'im,

as it &ere, a ne& man, and gives 'im a ne& credit and capacity.

>'ere is only t'is limitation to its operation= it does not restore offices

forfeited, or property or interest vested in ot'ers in conse)uence of t'e

conviction and ?udgement.

Alt'oug' muc' &'ic' is contained in t'e opinion of t'e four dissenting ?ustices, in t'e

$arland case, appeals po&erfully to t'e minds of t'e court, &e feel ourselves under

obligation to follo& t'e rule laid do&n by t'e ma?ority decision of t'e 'ig'er court. Ke

do t'is &it' t'e more grace &'en &e recall t'at according to t'e article 1'e respondent t'erein &as

convicted of bigamy and t'ereafter pardoned by t'e $overnor:$eneral. In a

subse)uent viction, t'is Court decided in 'is favor and 'eld/ K'en proceedings to

stri+e an attorney(s name from t'e rolls t'e fact of a conviction for a felony ground for

disbarment, it 'as been 'eld t'at a pardon operates to &ipe out t'e conviction and is


17/37

a bar to any proceeding for t'e disbarment of t'e attorney after t'e pardon 'as been

granted.

It is our vie& t'at t'e ruling does not govern t'e )uestion no& before us. In ma+ing it

t'e Court proceeded on t'e assumption t'at t'e pardon granted to respondent Lonto+

&as absolute. >'is is implicit in t'e ratio decidendi of t'e case, particularly in t'e

citations to support it, namely. In #e mmons, Cal. App. 11= #cott vs. #tate, "

>e4. Civ. App. 'e record, &'en offered in evidence, &as met

&it' an unconditional pardon, and could not, t'erefore, properly be said to

afford proof of a conviction of any felony. Daving been t'us cancelled, all

its force as a felony conviction &as ta+en a&ay. A pardon falling s'ort of t'is

&ould not be a pardon, according to t'e ?udicial construction &'ic' t'at act

of e4ecutive grace &as received. "& parte $arland, ; Kall, 'e pardon granted to respondent 'ere is not absolute but conditional, and merely

remitted t'e une4ecuted portion of 'is term. It does not reac' t'e offense itself, unli+e

t'at in "& parte $arland, &'ic' &as a full pardon and amnesty for all offense by 'im

committed in connection &it' rebellion 5civil &ar8 against government of t'e Enited

tates.

>'e foregoing considerations rendered In re Lonto+ are inapplicable 'ere.

#espondent $utierre% must be ?udged upon t'e fact of 'is conviction for murder

&it'out regard to t'e pardon 'e invo+es in defense. >'e crime &as )ualified by

treac'ery and aggravated by its 'aving been committed in 'and, by ta+ing advantage

of 'is official position 5respondent being municipal mayor at t'e time8 and &it' t'e use

of motor ve'icle. @eople vs. iosdado $utierre%, s%pra. >'e degree of moral turpitude

involved is suc' as to ?ustify 'is being purged from t'e profession.

>'e practice of la& is a privilege accorded only to t'ose &'o measure up to certain

rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. 0or t'e admission of a candidate to t'e

bar t'e #ules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but re)uire

satisfactory testimonials of good moral c'aracter. >'ese standards are neit'er

dispensed &it' nor lo&ered after admission/ t'e la&yer must continue to ad'ere to

t'em or else incur t'e ris+ of suspension or removal. As stated in "& parte Kall, 16!E.. "AILO"ES

ES"OLIN, J.:

>'is is a petition filed by 9uinciano . ailoces for readmission to t'e practice of la&

and t'e inclusion of 'is name in t'e roll of attorneys.

>'e records disclose t'at t'e Court of 0irst Instance of Negros Oriental in a decision

promulgated on eptember arcila isitacion de *esus. @resented for probate before t'e Court of 0irst


18/37

Instance of Negros Oriental, t'e genuineness of t'e document &as impugned by t'e

forced 'eirs of t'e alleged testatri4, and t'e court, finding t'at t'e document &as a

forgery, denied probate to t'e &ill.

On appeal, t'e Court of Appeals affirmed t'e verdict of conviction= and upon finality

t'ereof, petitioner commenced service of t'e sentence.

>'ereafter, Ledesma de *esus:@aras, complainant in t'e criminal case, instituted

before t'is Court disbarment proceedings against petitioner. >'e same culminated in'is disbarment on April 1, 1"1. 1

On ecember !, 1"!, t'e @resident of t'e @'ilippines granted petitioner absolute

and unconditional pardon and restored 'im to full civil and political rig'ts. 2

ince August 'e opposition of complainant Ledesma de*esus:@aras to respondent(s petition and

supplementary petition for reinstatement in t'e

roll of attorneys= and

58 >'e telegram dated 0ebruary 1", 1!- of

Nicanor ailoces, Barangay Captain of omolog,

Bindoy, Negros Oriental, addressed to 'is

4cellency 0erdinand . Marcos, re)uesting t'e

Office of t'e @resident to oppose t'e petition of

9uinciano ailoces for reinstatement in t'e #oll

of Attorneys on grounds stated t'erein.

It may be recalled t'at on *anuary 1!, 1!-, t'e Board of

$overnors of t'e Integrated Bar transmitted to t'e Donorable

upreme Court for its favorable consideration t'e above stated

petition for reinstatement.

ubse)uent to its being served &it' a copy of t'e resolution of t'e

upreme Court, t'e Integrated Bar received a petition dated

0ebruary 1;, 1!- signed by (t'e people of t'e Municipality of

Bindoy, @rovince of Negros Oriental( ve'emently opposing t'e

reinstatement of Mr. ailoces in t'e #oll of Attorneys. On October ,

1!- t'e @resident of t'e Integrated Bar &rote to Mr. ailoces


19/37

as+ing 'im to comment on t'e above mentioned petitions and

telegram.

>'is Office is no& in receipt of Mr. ailoces( comment dated

November 'is Court li+e&ise referred t'e oppositions interposed by Mrs. Ledesma de *esus:

@aras and Nicanor ailoces to t'e olicitor $eneral for investigation and

recommendation= and on August ;, 1-, t'e latter, after conducting an investigation,submitted 'is report, recommending t'at 9uinciano . ailoces be reinstated in t'e

roll of attorneys upon ta+ing 'is oat' ane& of t'e corresponding oat' of office.

>'e Court sustains t'e conclusion of t'e olicitor $eneral t'at petitioner 'as

sufficiently proven 'imself fit to be readmitted to t'e practice of la&. >rue it is t'at t'e

plenary pardon e4tended to 'im by t'e @resident does not of itself &arrant 'is

reinstatement.

vidence of reformation is re)uired before applicant is entitled to

reinstatement, not&it'standing t'e attorney 'as received a pardon

follo&ing 'is conviction, and t'e re)uirements of reinstatement 'ad

been 'eld to be t'e same as for original admission to t'e bar,

e4cept t'at t'e court may re)uire a greater degree of proof t'an in

an original evidence 2! C.*.. Attorney P Client, ept. ;1, p. -13

>'e decisive )uestion on an application for reinstatement is

&'et'er applicant is (of good moral c'aracter( in t'e sense in &'ic'

t'at p'rase is used &'en applied to attorneys:at:la& and is a fit and

proper person to be entrusted &it' t'e privileges of t'e office of an

attorney ... 2! C.*.. Attorney P Client, ept. ;1, p. -1"3.

@etitioner(s conduct after disbarment can stand searc'ing scrutiny. De 'as regained

t'e respect and confidence of 'is fello& attorneys as &ell as of t'e citi%ens of 'is

community. >'e favorable indorsements of bot' t'e Integrated Bar of t'e @'ilippines

and its Negros Oriental C'apter, t'e testimonials e4pressed in 'is be'alf by t'e

provincial governor of Negros Oriental as &ell as t'e municipal and barrio officials of

Bindoy, Negros Oriental, 'is active participation in civic and social underta+ings in t'e

community attest to 'is moral reform and re'abilitation and ?ustify 'is reinstatement.

@etitioner, no& " years of age, 'as reac'ed t'e t&ilig't of 'is life. De 'as been

barred from t'e practice of 'is profession for a period of 1 years. Ade)uate

punis'ment 'as been e4acted.

C'astened by 'is painful and 'umiliating e4perience, 'e furt'er pledges &it' all 'is

'onor ... t'at if reinstated in t'e roll of attorneys 'e &ill surely and consistentlyconduct 'imself 'onestly, uprig'tly and &ort'ily. Indeed, t'ere is reasonable


20/37

e4pectation t'at 'e &ill endeavor to lead an irreproac'able life and maintain steadfast

fidelity to t'e la&yer(s oat'.

KD#0O#, petitioner 9uinciano . ailoces is 'ereby ordered reinstated in t'e

roll of attorneys.

A.". No. 5117 Se?-eber 9, 1999

'e facts of t'is administrative case, as found by t'e Commission on Bar iscipline of

t'e Integrated Bar of t'e @'ilippines 5IB@8, 1in its #eport, are as follo&s/

Complainant 5Marilou ebastian8 alleged t'at sometime in November, 1,

s'e &as referred to t'e respondent &'o promised to process all necessary

documents re)uired for complainant(s trip to t'e EA for a fee of One

Dundred 0ifty >'ousand @esos 5@16,666.668.

On ecember 1, 1 t'e complainant made a partial payment of t'e

re)uired fee in t'e amount of >&enty >'ousand @esos 5@6,666.668, &'ic'

&as received by ster Calis, &ife of t'e respondent for &'ic' a receipt &as

issued.

0rom t'e period of *anuary 1< to May 1; complainant 'ad several

conferences &it' t'e respondent regarding t'e processing of 'er travel

documents. >o facilitate t'e processing, respondent demanded an additional

amount of i4ty 0ive >'ousand @esos 5@",666.668 and prevailed upon

complainant to resign from 'er ?ob as stenograp'er &it' t'e Commission on

Duman #ig'ts.

On *une 6, 1;, to e4pedite t'e processing of 'er travel documents

complainant issued @lanters evelopment Ban+ C'ec+ No. 16"; in t'e

amount of i4ty 0ive >'ousand @esos 5@",666.668 in favor of Atty. . Calis

&'o issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnis'ed t'e

complainant copies of upplemental to E.. Nonimmigrant isa Application

5Of. 1"8 and a list of )uestions &'ic' &ould be as+ed during intervie&s.

K'en complainant in)uired about 'er passport, Atty. Calis informed t'e

former t'at s'e &ill be assuming t'e name Li%ette @. 0errer married to

#oberto 0errer, employed as sales manager of Matiao Mar+eting, Inc. >'e

complainant &as furnis'ed documents to support 'er assumed

identity.,-wphi,.n8t

#eali%ing t'at s'e &ill be travelling &it' spurious documents, t'e

complainant demanded t'e return of 'er money, 'o&ever s'e &as assured

by respondent t'at t'ere &as not'ing to &orry about for 'e 'as been

engaged in t'e business for )uite sometime= &it' t'e promise t'at 'er

money &ill be refunded if somet'ing goes &rong.

Kee+s before 'er departure respondent demanded for t'e payment of t'e

re)uired fee &'ic' &as paid by complainant, but t'e corresponding receipt

&as not given to 'er.

K'en complainant demanded for 'er passport, respondent assured t'e

complainant t'at it &ill be given to 'er on 'er departure &'ic' &as

sc'eduled on eptember ", 1;. On said date complainant &as given 'er

passport and visa issued in t'e name of Li%ette @. 0errer. Complainant left

toget'er &it' *ennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel &'o &ere also recruits of

t'e respondent.

Epon arrival at t'e ingapore International Airport, complainant toget'er &it'

*ennyfer Belo and Maribel &ere appre'ended by t'e ingapore Airport

Officials for carrying spurious travel documents= Complainant contacted t'erespondent t'roug' overseas telep'one call and informed 'im of by 'er


21/37

predicament. 0rom eptember " to , 1;, complainant &as detained at

C'angi @risons in ingapore.

On eptember , 1; t'e complainant &as deported bac+ to t'e

@'ilippines and respondent fetc'ed 'er from t'e airport and broug't 'er to

'is residence at -!:A >res Marias treet, ampaloc, Manila. #espondent

too+ complainant(s passport &it' a promise t'at 'e &ill secure ne& travel

documents for complainant. ince complainant opted not to pursue &it' 'er

travel, s'e demanded for t'e return of 'er money in t'e amount of OneDundred 0ifty >'ousand @esos 5@16,666.668.

On *une ;, 1", *une 1- and *uly , 1" respondent made partial refunds

of @1,666.66= @",666.66= and @,666.66.

On ecember 1, 1" t'e complainant t'roug' counsel, sent a demand

letter to respondent for t'e refund of a remaining balance of One Dundred

0ourteen >'ousand @esos 5@11;,666.668 &'ic' &as ignored by t'e

respondent.

ometime in Marc' 1! t'e complainant &ent to see t'e respondent,

'o&ever 'is &ife informed 'er t'at t'e respondent &as in Cebu attending to

business matters.

In May 1! t'e complainant again tried to see t'e respondent 'o&ever s'e

found out t'at t'e respondent 'ad transferred to an un+no&n residence

apparently &it' intentions to evade responsibility.

Attac'ed to t'e complaint are t'e p'otocopies of receipts for t'e amount

paid by complainant, applications for E..A. isa, )uestions and ans&ers

as+ed during intervie&s= receipts ac+no&ledging partial refunds of fees paid

by t'e complainant toget'er &it' demand letter for t'e remaining balance of

One Dundred 0ourteen >'ousand @esos 5@11;,666.668= &'ic' &as received

by t'e respondent. 2

espite several notices sent to t'e respondent re)uiring an ans&er to or comment on

t'e complaint, t'ere &as no response. #espondent li+e&ise failed to attend t'e

sc'eduled 'earings of t'e case. No appearance &'atsoever &as made by t'e

respondent. %As a result of t'e ine4plicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of t'e

respondent to comply &it' t'e orders of t'e Commission, t'e investigation against

'im proceeded e& parte.

On eptember ;, 1-, t'e Commission on Bar iscipline issued its #eport on t'e

case, finding t'at/

It appears t'at t'e services of t'e respondent &as engaged for t'e purpose of

securing a visa for a E..A. travel of complainant. >'ere &as no mention of ?ob

placement or employment abroad, 'ence it is not correct to say t'at t'e

respondent engaged in illegal recruitment.

>'e alleged proposal of t'e respondent to secure t'e E..A. visa for t'e

complainant under an assumed name &as accepted by t'e complainant &'ic'

negates deceit on t'e part of t'e respondent. Noted li+e&ise is t'e partial

refunds made by t'e respondent of t'e fees paid by t'e complainant. Do&ever,t'e transfer of residence &it'out a for&arding address indicates 'is attempt to

escape responsibility.

In t'e lig't of t'e foregoing, &e find t'at t'e respondent is guilty of gross

misconduct for violating Canon 1 #ule 1.61 of t'e Code of @rofessional

#esponsibility &'ic' provides t'at a la&yer s'all not engage in unla&ful,

dis'onest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

KD#0O#, it is respectfully recommended t'at A>>F. O#O>DO CALI

be E@N as a member of t'e bar until 'e fully refunds t'e fees paid to

'im by complainant and comply &it' t'e order of t'e Commission on Bar

iscipline pursuant to #ule 1


22/37

because complainant failed to substantiate 'er allegation on t'e matter. In fact s'e

did not mention any particular ?ob or employment promised to 'er by t'e respondent.

>'e only service of t'e respondent mentioned by t'e complainant &as t'at of

securing a visa for t'e Enited tates.

Ke li+e&ise concur &it' t'e IB@ Board of $overnors in its #esolution, t'at 'erein

respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unla&ful, dis'onest, immoral

or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon I, #ule 161 of t'e Code of @rofessional

#esponsibility. #espondent deceived t'e complainant by assuring 'er t'at 'e couldgive 'er visa and travel documents= t'at despite spurious documents not'ing

unto&ard &ould 'appen= t'at 'e guarantees 'er arrival in t'e EA and even

promised to refund 'er t'e fees and e4penses already paid, in case somet'ing &ent

&rong. All for material gain.

eception and ot'er fraudulent acts by a la&yer are disgraceful and dis'onorable.

>'ey reveal moral fla&s in a la&yer. >'ey are unacceptable practices. A la&yer(s

relations'ip &it' ot'ers s'ould be c'aracteri%ed by t'e 'ig'est degree of good fait',

fairness and candor. >'is is t'e essence of t'e la&yer(s oat'. >'e la&yer(s oat' is not

mere facile &ords, drift and 'ollo&, but a sacred trust t'at must be up'eld and +eep

inviolable. 6>'e nature of t'e office of an attorney re)uires t'at 'e s'ould be a

person of good moral c'aracter. (>'is re)uisite is not only a condition precedent toadmission to t'e practice of la&, its continued possession is also essential for

remaining in t'e practice of la&.7Ke 'ave sternly &arned t'at any gross misconduct

of a la&yer, &'et'er in 'is professional or private capacity, puts 'is moral c'aracter in

serious doubt as a member of t'e Bar, and renders 'im unfit to continue in t'e

practice of la&. 9

It is dismaying to note 'o& respondent so cavalierly ?eopardi%ed t'e life and liberty of

complainant &'en 'e made 'er travel &it' spurious documents. Do& often 'ave

victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign

lands because t'ey &ere provided fa+e travel documents #espondent totally

disregarded t'e personal safety of t'e complainant &'en 'e sent 'er abroad on falseassurances. Not only are respondent(s acts illegal, t'ey are also detestable from t'e

moral point of vie&. Dis utter lac+ of moral )ualms and scruples is a real t'reat to t'e

Bar and t'e administration of ?ustice.

>'e practice of la& is not a rig't but a privilege besto&ed by t'e tate on t'ose &'o

s'o& t'at t'ey possess, and continue to possess, t'e )ualifications re)uired by la&

for t'e conferment of suc' privilege. 10Ke must stress t'at members'ip in t'e bar is a

privilege burdened &it' conditions. A la&yer 'as t'e privilege to practice la& only

during good be'avior. De can be deprived of 'is license for misconduct ascertained

and declared by ?udgment of t'e court after giving 'im t'e opportunity to be 'eard. 11

Dere, it is &ort' noting t'at t'e adamant refusal of respondent to comply &it' t'e

orders of t'e IB@ and 'is total disregard of t'e summons issued by t'e IB@ are

contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. >'us, &e find no 'esitation in

removing respondent orot'eo Calis from t'e #oll of Attorneys for 'is unet'ical,

unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct to&ard complainant.

Lastly, t'e grant in favor of t'e complainant for t'e recovery of t'e @11;,666.66 s'e

paid t'e respondent is in order. 12#espondent not only un?ustifiably refused to return

t'e complainant(s money upon demand, but 'e stubbornly persisted in 'olding on toit, unmindful of t'e 'ards'ip and 'umiliation suffered by t'e complainant.

KD#0O#, respondent orot'eo Calis is 'ereby IBA## and 'is name is

ordered stric+en from t'e #oll of Attorneys. Let a copy of t'is ecision be

0E#NID to t'e IB@ and t'e Bar Confidant to be spread on t'e personal records

of respondent. #espondent is li+e&ise ordered to pay to t'e complainant immediately

t'e amount of One Dundred 0ourteen >'ousand 5@11;,666.668 @esos representing

t'e amount 'e collected from 'er.,-wphi,.n8t

O O##.

A.". No. (%50 February 17, 201%

!ATRO"INIO >. AGBULOS, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ROSELLER A. >IRAY,#espondent.

C I I O N

!ERALTA, J.:

>'e case stemmed from a Complaint1filed before t'e Office of t'e Bar Confidant

5OBC8 by complainant Mrs. @atrocinio . Agbulos against respondent Atty. #oseller A.

iray of Asingan, @angasinan, for allegedly notari%ing a document denominated as

Affidavit of Non:>enancyin violation of t'e Notarial La&. >'e said affidavit &as

supposedly e4ecuted by complainant, but t'e latter denies said e4ecution and claims

t'at t'e signature and t'e community ta4 certificate 5C>C8 s'e allegedly presented

are not 'ers. 'e furt'er claims t'at t'e C>C belongs to a certain C'ristian

Anton.


23/37

In 'is Comment,respondent admitted 'aving prepared and notari%ed t'e document

in )uestion at t'e re)uest of 'is client ollente, &'o assured 'im t'at it &as

personally signed by complainant and t'at t'e C>C appearing t'erein is o&ned by

'er."De, t'us, claims good fait' in notari%ing t'e sub?ect document.

In a #esolution!dated April 1", 66!, t'e OBC referred t'e case to t'e Integrated Bar

of t'e @'ilippines 5IB@8 for investigation, report and recommendation or decision.

After t'e mandatory conference and 'earing, t'e parties submitted t'eir respective@osition @apers.-Complainant insists t'at s'e &as deprived of 'er property because

of t'e illegal notari%ation of t'e sub?ect document.#espondent, on t'e ot'er 'and,

admits 'aving notari%ed t'e document in )uestion and as+s for apology and

forgiveness from complainant as a result of 'is indiscretion.16

In 'is report, Commissioner ennis A. B. 0una 5Commissioner 0una8 reported t'at

respondent indeed notari%ed t'e sub?ect document in t'e absence of t'e alleged

affiant 'aving been broug't only to respondent by ollente. It turned out later t'at t'e

document &as falsified and t'e C>C belonged to anot'er person and not to

complainant. De furt'er observed t'at respondent did not attempt to refute t'e

accusation against 'im= rat'er, 'e even apologi%ed for t'e complained

act.11 Commissioner 0una, t'us, recommended t'at respondent be found guilty of

violating t'e Code of @rofessional #esponsibility and t'e 66; #ules on Notarial

@ractice, and t'at 'e be meted t'e penalty of si4 5"8 mont's suspension as a la&yer

and si4 5"8 mont's suspension as a Notary @ublic.1

On April 1, 66-, t'e IB@ Board of $overnors issued #esolution No. III:66-:1""

&'ic' reads/

#OL to AO@> and A@@#O, as it is 'ereby AO@> and

A@@#O, @/-' o//&a-/o, t'e #eport and #ecommendation of t'e

Investigating Commissioner of t'e above:entitled case, 'erein made part of t'is

#esolution as Anne4 A= and, finding t'e recommendation fully supported by t'eevidence on record and t'e applicable la&s and rules, and considering #espondents

violation of t'e Code of @rofessional #esponsibility and 66; #ules on Notarial

@ractice, Atty. #oseller A. iray is 'ereby SUS!EN+E+ from t'e practice of la& for

one 518 mont'.1'e Court is a&are of t'e practice of not a fe& la&yers commissioned as notary

public to aut'enticate documents &it'out re)uiring t'e p'ysical presence of affiants.

Do&ever, t'e adverse conse)uences of t'is practice far out&eig' &'atever

convenience is afforded to t'e absent affiants. oing a&ay &it' t'e essential

re)uirement of p'ysical presence of t'e affiant does not ta+e into account t'e

li+eli'ood t'at t'e documents may be spurious or t'at t'e affiants may not be &'o

t'ey purport to be. A notary public s'ould not notari%e a document unless t'e persons

&'o signed t'e same are t'e very same persons &'o e4ecuted and personally

appeared before 'im to attest to t'e contents and trut' of &'at are stated t'erein. >'e

purpose of t'is re)uirement is to enable t'e notary public to verify t'e genuineness of

t'e signature of t'e ac+no&ledging party and to ascertain t'at t'e document is t'e

partys free act and deed.1

>'e Court 'as repeatedly emp'asi%ed in a number of cases6t'e important role a

notary public performs, to &it/

4 4 4 2N3otari%ation is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested &it'

substantive public interest. >'e notari%ation by a notary public converts a private

document into a public document, ma+ing it admissible in evidence &it'out furt'er

proof of its aut'enticity. A notari%ed document is, by la&, entitled to full fait' and credit

upon its face. It is for t'is reason t'at a notary public must observe &it' utmost caret'e basic re)uirements in t'e performance of 'is duties= ot'er&ise, t'e publics

confidence in t'e integrity of a notari%ed document &ould be undermined.1

#espondents failure to perform 'is duty as a notary public resulted not only damage

to t'ose directly affected by t'e notari%ed document but also in undermining t'e

integrity of a notary public and in degrading t'e function of notari%ation. De s'ould,

t'us, be 'eld liable for suc' negligence not only as a notary public but also as a

la&yer.'e responsibility to fait'fully observe and respect t'e legal solemnity of t'e

oat' in an ac+no&ledgment or2%rat is more pronounced &'en t'e notary public is a

la&yer because of 'is solemn oat' under t'e Code of @rofessional #esponsibility to

obey t'e la&s and to do no false'ood or consent to t'e doing of any.

;

La&yerscommissioned as notaries public are mandated to disc'arge &it' fidelity t'e duties of

t'eir offices, suc' duties being dictated by public policy and impressed &it' public

interest.,-wphi,

As to t'e proper penalty, t'e Court finds t'e need to increase t'at recommended by

t'e IB@ &'ic' is one mont' suspension as a la&yer and si4 mont's suspension as

notary public, considering t'at respondent 'imself prepared t'e document, and 'e

performed t'e notarial act &it'out t'e personal appearance of t'e affiant and &it'out

identifying 'er &it' competent evidence of 'er identity. Kit' 'is indiscretion, 'e

allo&ed t'e use of a C>C by someone &'o did not o&n it. Korse, 'e allo&ed 'imself

to be an instrument of fraud. Based on e4isting ?urisprudence, &'en a la&yer

commissioned as a notary public fails to disc'arge 'is duties as suc', 'e is meted t'e

penalties of revocation of 'is notarial commission, dis)ualification from being

commissioned as a notary public for a period of t&o years, and suspension from t'e

practice of la& for one year."

EREFORE, t'e Court finds respondent Atty. #oseller A. iray GUILTY of breac'

of t'e 66; #ules on Notarial @ractice and t'e Code of @rofessional #esponsibility.

Accordingly, t'e Court SUS!EN+S 'im from t'e practice of la& for one 518

year= RE>O:ES 'is incumbent commission, if any= and !ROIBITS 'im from being

commissioned as a notary public for t&o 58 years, effective immediately. Deis ARNE+ t'at a repetition of t'e same or similar acts in t'e future s'all be dealt

&it' more severely.

Let all t'e courts, t'roug' t'e Office of t'e Court Administrator, as &ell as t'e IB@ and

t'e Office of t'e Bar Confidant, be notified of t'is ecision and be it entered into

respondent(s personal record.

O O##.

A.". No. 610( *auary %1, 2005

BEL;AIR TRANSIT SER>I"E "OR!ORATION oyota Camry &it' @late No. KM !, and

&as, li+e&ise, fetc'ed at 'is residence in accordance &it' t'e #ental Agreement No.

!;6.'is second contract &as also personally signed by t'e respondent. >'e

statements of account;&ere, t'ereafter, sent to t'e respondent at 'is office and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/ac_7350_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt4


25/37

business address at Martine% P Mendo%a La& Office, Cityland 'o& >o&er,

Mandaluyong City. espite repeated demands for payment, t'e respondent refused

to pay 'is account, &'ic' constrained t'e complainant to send a formal and final

demand for payment t'roug' counsel.>'is formal demand &as, li+e&ise, ignored by

t'e respondent, furt'er compelling t'e complainant to resort to filing a complaint"for

recovery of money on Marc' 1, 66< before t'e Metropolitan >rial Court of Ma+ati

City, Branc' ", doc+eted as Civil Case No. -1'e respondent decided not to report t'e incident to t'e

complainant, t'in+ing t'at it &as going to be t'e first and last incident. Do&ever,

during t'e trip of eptember -, 661, t'e respondent again almost figured in an

accident, prompting t'e respondent to contact t'e complainant to complain as to &'y

t'e latter &as providing drivers to t'eir la& firm &'o 'ad not 'ad enoug' sleep. Noone from t'e complainants staff could provide 'im &it' a decent ans&er,

merely 'e respondent furt'er averred, t'us/

1;. It is not only inaccurate but also unfair for t'e complainant to baselessly

accuse t'e respondent or MPM of refusing to pay t'eir claims. As s'o&n

above, MPM immediately paid all of complainants billings for August 661. It

&as only t'e billings for eptember 661 t'at remained unpaid because

MPM and respondent first &anted to meet &it' t'e @resident of t'e

complainant to resolve t'eir complaint. MPM and respondent do not 'ave a

'istory of not 'onoring t'eir obligations. As officers of t'e court, it is

cogni%ant t'at 2t'ey3 s'ould conduct 2t'emselves3 properly so as not to do

in?ustice to anyone, including t'e complainant.

1;.1. #espondent almost met an accident because t'e complainant provided

'im &it' drivers t'at did not 'ave enoug' rest and sleep before t'ey drove

for 'im. It is t'e respondent &'o is t'e aggrieved party 'ere and not t'e

complainant. >'us, it is very unfortunate t'at it is t'e respondent &'o is

slapped &it' a disbarment case. MPM did not even file a complaint &it' t'e

epartment of >rade and Industry for violation of t'e Consumers Act of t'e@'ilippines because it &anted to resolve its complaint amicably.

1;. #espondent respectfully manifests t'at, only to buy peace, t'e

)uestioned billings of t'e complainant &'ic' 2&ere3 made t'e sub?ect of a

complaint t'ey filed against 'im 'ad already been fully satisfied.

A copy of Official #eceipt No. 6 dated ; eptember 66< in t'e name of

Martine% P Mendo%a La& Office is attac'ed 'ereto and made an integral part 'ereof

as Anne4 D.

>'e respondent concluded t'at t'e complainant did not 'ave a cause of action for

disbarment against 'im, as 'e &as merely e4ercising 'is rig't to contest its

)uestionable billings.

>'e case &as referred to t'e Integrated Bar of t'e @'ilippines 5IB@8 for investigation,

report and recommendation and &as assigned to IB@ Commissioner Caesar #.

ulay. uring t'e 'earing of Marc' 1, 66;, t'e counsel for t'e complainant

manifested t'at alt'oug' t'e respondent 'ad already paid 'is account, suc' payment

&as made only after t'e court 'ad already decided t'e case against t'e respondent

and after t'e filing of a motion for e4ecution, 16&'ic' t'e respondent admitted. >'us,

t'e parties agreed during t'e 'earing t'at as far as t'e monetary obligation &as

concerned, t'e said ?udgment 'ad already been satisfied by t'e respondent. >'e

parties &ere t'en re)uired to file t'eir respective position papers, &'ic' &erebasically reiterations of t'eir previous allegations.

In 'is #eport and #ecommendation dated April 1, 66;, Commissioner ulay made

t'e follo&ing findings/

#espondent offers t&o reasons for non:payment/ 0irst, t'at t'e obligation &as

incurred not by 'im but by 'is la& office Martine% P Mendo%a. econd, t'at t'e

respondent almost met an accident on t'e t&o occasions 'e used t'e services of t'e

complainant and t'erefore 'e s'ould not be penali%ed for e4ercising its rig't to

contest complainants )uestionable billings.

...
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_6107_2005.html#fnt10


26/37

As to t'e first reason, &e reiterate t'at as decided by t'e Metropolitan >rial Court,

respondent &as liable for t'e obligation to t'e complainant. Indeed, respondent

cannot avoid t'e obligation and pass it on to 'is la& firm and ?ust ma+e a complete

denial considering t'at 'e is a name partner in t'e firm and la& partners'ip of

Martine% and Mendo%a. >'e Metropolitan >rial Court, t'erefore, ruled t'at respondent

&as, nevert'eless, liable for t'e obligation of 'is la& partners'ip. Independent of t'e

said decision, &e find t'at t'e documents attac'ed as Anne4es A and B to t'e

complaint appear to 'ave been signed by t'e respondent and even assuming t'at it

&as t'e la& firm t'at &as liable, t'ere is not'ing on record to s'o& t'at t'e la& firm

)uestioned t'e billings of t'e complainant or t'at t'e respondent referred t'e same to

t'e la& firm for proper disposition.

As to t'e second reason, respondent admits t'at t'ere &as no &ritten demand made

for t'e complainant to account and ans&er for t'e near accidents alleged by

respondent, &'ic' near accidents as &e understand are 'is reasons for not

immediately paying. Ke find t'e absence of a &ritten demand from t'e respondent

)uite odd especially in t'e case of a la&yer &'o is see+ing to e4ercise 'is rig't to

contest complainants )uestionable billings or ot'er&ise 'old complainant

accountable for t'e said near accidents. It &ould per'aps be understandable if t'e

omission &as made by a layman= but for a la&yer not to put 'is demand in &riting, it

&ould be unc'aracteristic to say t'e least. Neit'er &as a demand made by t'e la&firm of Martine% and Mendo%a as a basis for non:payment. Ke are, t'erefore, inclined

to loo+ at t'is reason, 5near accident8 as a mere aftert'oug't and &ould not ?ustify

respondent in not paying for t&o 58 years &'at appears to be a clear and simple

obligation to complainant. As pointed out by complainant, it &as only after a &rit of

e4ecution &as issued &'en payment &as made.

>'e reason offered by respondent for not paying complainant particularly t'e alleged

near accident is, t'erefore, not ?ustifiable. >'e said reason appears to us trite and

contrived. Lac+ of funds to pay an obligation may per'aps be a good reason but to

use as a reason t'e said near accident on t'e bare assertion of respondent alone

and not supported by any corroborating evidence may not be readily acceptable. Ke

are, on t'e ot'er 'and, also not convinced t'at respondent &as deceitful or grossly

negligent by 'is actions. >'ere is no evidence to s'o& t'at respondent &as acting

&it' deceit in not paying for t'e obligation incurred. Do&ever, &e find respondent

lac+ing in probity and fort'rig'tness in dealing &it' t'e complaint and )uite simply

negligent in t'e 'andling of t'is particular obligation to complainant. >a+en in t'e lig't

of t'e circumstances presented, &e believe respondent s'ould be admonis'ed and

&arned to avoid suc' similar conduct in t'e future.

It &as, t'us, recommended t'at t'e respondent be admonis'ed and advised t

spethics cases canon1

Documents