Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONA.C. No. 6057 June 27, 2006PETER T. DONTON,Complainant,vs.ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO,Respondent.D E C I S I O NCARPIO,J.:The CaseThis is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco ("respondent") for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1,1Rules 1.012and 1.023of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code").The FactsIn his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document4against Duane O. Stier ("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay ("Maggay") and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement.The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-charge for perjury5against complainant. Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, stated that:5. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1995was prepared and notarized by me under the following circumstances:A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City.B. Sometime in September 1995,Mr. Stier a U.S. citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his name agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to prepare several documents that would guarantee recognition of him being the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the name of Mr. Donton.D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed use of the property for his residence and business operations. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to Mr. Donton.6Complainant averred that respondents act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainants counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan,7because respondent refused to act as complainants witness in the criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he "prepared and notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its genuineness and due execution.In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.The IBPs Report and RecommendationIn her Report dated 26 February 2004 ("Report"), Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan ("Commissioner San Juan") of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable for taking part in a "scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the Philippines." Commissioner San Juan recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for two years and the cancellation of his commission as Notary Public.In Resolution No. XVI-2004-222 dated 16 April 2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for six months.On 28 June 2004, the IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B8of the Rules of Court.On 28 July 2004, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP. Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would already retire by 2005 after the termination of his pending cases. He also said that his practice of law is his only means of support for his family and his six minor children.In a Resolution dated 7 October 2004, the IBP denied the motion for reconsideration because the IBP had no more jurisdiction on the case as the matter had already been referred to the Court.The Ruling of the CourtThe Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.9A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.10By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real property.11Yet, in his motion for reconsideration,12respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainants name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by preparing several documents,13including the Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainants name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands14by preparing said documents.Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended.15InBalinon v. De Leon,16respondent Atty. De Leon was suspended from the practice of law for three years for preparing an affidavit that virtually permitted him to commit concubinage. InIn re: Santiago,17respondent Atty. Santiago was suspended from the practice of law for one year for preparing a contract which declared the spouses to be single again after nine years of separation and allowed them to contract separately subsequent marriages.WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. TansingcoGUILTYof violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, weSUSPENDrespondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law forSIX MONTHSeffective upon finality of this Decision.Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCA.M. No. 491 October 6, 1989IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.PER CURIAM:In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention Center (or PICC), the following were elected by the House of Delegates (composed of 120 chapter presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as officers:NAMEPOSITION

Atty. Violeta DrilonPresident

Atty. Bella TiroExecutive Vice-President

Atty. Salvador LaoChairman, House of Delegates

Atty. Renato F. RonquilloSecretary, House of Delegates

Atty. Teodoro QuicoyTreasurer, House of Delegates

Atty. Oscar BadellesSergeant at Arms, House of Delegates

Atty. Justiniano CortesGovernor & Vice-President for Northern Luzon

Atty. Ciriaco AtienzaGovernor & Vice-President for Central Luzon

Atty. Mario JalandoniGovernor & Vice-President for Metro Manila

Atty. Jose Aguilar GrapilonGovernor & Vice-President for Southern Luzon

Atty. Teodoro AlmineGovernor & Vice-President for Bicolandia

Atty. Porfirio SiyangcoGovernor & Vice-President for Eastern Visayas

Atty. Ricardo TeruelGovernor & Vice-President for Western Visayas

Atty. Gladys TiongcoGovernor & Vice-President for Eastern Mindanao

Atty. Simeon DatumanongGovernor & Vice-President for Western Mindanao

The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office on July 4,1989, before the Supreme Court en banc. However,disturbed by the widespread reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities. The Supreme Courten banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself (i.e. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989) which was conducted by the "IBP Comelec," headed by Justice Reynato Puno of the Court of Appeals, was unanimously adjudged by the participants and observers to be above board. For Justice Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to prevent tampering with, and marking of, the ballots.What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of the IBP.I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon Election" (Manila Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Mauricio, in two successive columns: "The Invertebrated Bar" (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The Disintegrating Bar" (Malaya, June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin Jr. in an article, entitled "Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free Press, July 8,1989), and the editorial, entitled 'Wrong Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989), were unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and pressure tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the three principal candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly "poured heart, soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates."Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals who felt at a disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso donations, and she had the added advantage of having regional directors and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of absence by her husband, the Labor Secretary) campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity), as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA (Angara, Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. Drilon is employed, and that government positions were promised to others by the office of the Labor Secretary.Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, in addition, mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of Labor, especially conciliators and employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and comfort to her (Atty. Drilon's) candidacy," the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly "wined and dined continuously, womened and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from Pl5,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the election, some twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated to P50,000."In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top official of the judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP politics on election day by closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in a room of the PICC (the Philippine International Convention Center where the convention/election were held) during a recess x x x."Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed Mauricio's reports with some embellishments.II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE.Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in itsen bancresolution dated June 15, 1989, directed the outgoing and incoming members of the IBP Board of Governors, the principal officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to appear before it on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., and there to inform the Court on the veracity of the aforementioned reports and to recommend, for the consideration of the Court, appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and strengthening adherence to the fundamental principles of the IBP.In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily stressed at the time of its organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter. The fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and governors would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve."The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply disturbed to note that in connection with the election of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports carried by media and transmitted as well by word of mouth, that there was extensive and intensive campaigning by candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of considerable sums of money by candidates, including vote-buying, direct or indirect."The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes, attended the dialogue, upon invitation of the Court, to give counsel and advice. The meeting between the Courten banc on the one hand, and the outgoing and in coming IBP officers on the other, was an informal one. Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to determine whether the prohibited acts and activities enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before and during the 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.The Courten bancformed a committee and designated Senior Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as Chairman, and Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, as members, to conduct the inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted as the committee's Recording Secretary.A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct of the elections. The managers of three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza, the Hyatt, and the Holiday Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective headquarters and where they billeted their supporters were summoned. The officer of the Philippine National Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places in their campaign to win the votes of delegates. The Philippine Airlines officials were called to testify on the charge that some candidates gave free air fares to delegates to the convention. Officials of the Labor Department were also called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked for the election of Atty. Drilon.The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus Bigornia and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the nature of their sources of information relative to the IBP elections. Their stories were based, they said, on letters, phone calls and personal interviews with persons who claimed to have knowledge of the facts, but whom they, invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused to identify.The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving, and analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as were perceived to have direct and personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and the Court, after deliberating thereon, has Resolved to accept and adopt the same.III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS.Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:"SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be consideredipso factoresigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections:SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. The following acts and practices relative to election are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through another person:(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections;(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered or promised to any person."Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules:(d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections) of the by-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee, the following violations were established:(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for president, executive vice-president, the officers of candidate the House of Delegates and Board of Governors.The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Upon the invitation of IBP President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July 13,1989, p. 4), they attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in Baguio City (during the conference of chapter presidents of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113; t.s.n., July 10, p. 41; t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where they announced their candidacies and met the chapter presidents.Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their written endorsements. He personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested the chapter presidents and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination for IBP President. He started campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March 1989 after the chapter elections which determined the membership of the House of Delegates composed of the 120 chapter presidents (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He obtained forty (40) commitments. He submitted photocopies of his nomination forms which read:"Nomination FormI Join in NominatingRAMON M. NISCEasNational President of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines______________ _______________Chapter Signature"Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. Tejada, Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L. Quirico Ernesto S. Salun-at, Gloria C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza, Jose N. Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G. Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado Democrito M. Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., Emesto A. Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T. Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar C. Viola, Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Flores, Sixto Marella, Jr., Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo, Antonio G. Nalapo Romualdo A. Din Jr., Jose P. Icaonapo Jr., and Manuel S. Person.Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-85). Unfortunately, despite those formal commitments, he obtained only 14 votes in the election (t.s.n., June 29, 1 989, p. 86). The reason, he said, is that. some of those who had committed their votes to him were "manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or remunerated" (t.s.n., June 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4, 1989, pp. 100-1 04).(2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign.The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development) Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The plane manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo) listed Atty. Violeta Drilon, Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys Tiongco, and Amy Wong. Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were IBP candidates.Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane. She said that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about the availability of a PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3,1989, pp. 116-118).Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to obtain booking from the Philippine Airlines for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He went to the DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a client. While at the DENR, he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he would be taking a PNB plane. As Assistant Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he asked if he, together with the Drilon group, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His request was granted. Their purpose in going to Bicol was to assess their chances in the IBP elections. The Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga, and Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 549).Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May 23,1989, DENR Secretary Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regional development projects there and to survey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother (meaning that Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran) if he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. Assistant Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group which included Attorneys Drilon, Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi the Drilon group had lunch with Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69).(3) Formation of tickets and single slates.The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June 3, 1989.Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of himself for President; Bella D. Tiro, for Executive Vice-President; and for Governors: Justiniano P. Cortez (Northern Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V. Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo A. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr. (Bicolandia), Ricardo B. Teruel (Western Visayas), Porfirio P. Siyangco (Eastern Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat (Western Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao) (Exhibit M-Nisce).The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for President, Arturo Tiu for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy Wong (Metro Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog), Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Visayas), Joelito Barrera (Western Visayas), Gladys Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao) (Exhibit M-1-Nisce).Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B. Sansano Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo Renato F. Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos, Mario Valderrama, Candido P. Balbin Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Vicente P. Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T. Albacite and Oscar V. Badelles.(4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates.Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to whom he gave four round-trip tickets (worth about P10,000) from Iligan City to Manila and back. Badelles was a voting delegate. Nisce, however, failed to get a written commitment from him because Atty. Medialdea assured him (Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan, h'wag mo nang papirmahin." Badelles won as sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that of Drilon.Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets, but he Badelles said that he did not use them, because if he did, he would be committed to Nisce, and he Badelles did not want to be committed (t.s.n., July 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his candidate, and another ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of Zamboanga. Records of the Philippine Airlines showed that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica), Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3- Calica), and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica).In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's candidates won: Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4, as Secretary of the House of Delegates (t.s.n. July 3, p. 161).(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates.(a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDOAtty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters. The 24 rooms were to be occupied by his staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The three suites were to be occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol Bar Association, and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for the hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn, where a room cost P990 per day with breakfast.Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: Emesto C. Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong, Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio Cribe Juanita Subia, Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy Manito Lucero, Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, Julian Ocampo, Francisco Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla, Amador Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes, Jr., Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. Formilleza, Jr., Democrito Perez, Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario Jalandoni, Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio Santos, Tiburcio Edano James Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza, Francisco Roxas, Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge Jaime Hamoy, Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay, Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon.Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified that Atty. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the presidential suite, which was used as the Secretariat. The group bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 63-68). The total sum of P227,114.89 was paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms.(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILONThe delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites. According to Ms. Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions manager, the contract that Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Atty. Callanta."Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza, recalled that it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto who first came to book rooms for the IBP delegates. She suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate. He gave her the name of Atty. Callanta who would make the arrangements with her. Mr. Benedicto turned out to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the rooms, food, and beverages consumed by the Drilon group, with an unpaid balance of P302,197.30. Per Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone conversation with Ms. Villanueva, Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza.Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 rooms at the Philippine Plaza. He made a downpayment of P123,000. His "working sheet' showed that the following persons contributed for that down payment:(a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office)P 25,000

(b) Antonio Carpio20,000

(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office)10,000

(d) Jay Castro10,000

(e) Danny Deen20,000

(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office)10,000

(g) Alfonso Reyno20,000

(h) Cosme Rossel15,300

(t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have been contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a project. This time, they contributed so that their partners or associates could attend the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention too.Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. Callanta had billeted her delegates at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly did not also know in whose name the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask for a room where she could rest during the convention. She admitted, however, that she paid for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta, through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n. July 3,1989).The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved by Atty. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon, Victoria A. Verciles, Victoria C. Loanzon, Leopoldo A. Consulto Ador Lao, Victoria Borra, Aimee Wong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu, Gallardo, Acong Atienza, D. Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat, Manuel Yuson, Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella, Joselito Barrera, Radon Macalalag, Oscar Badelles, Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza, Gil Batula Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla, Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta, Vicente Real, Sylvio Casuncad Espina, Guerrero, Julius Neri, Linda Lim, Ben Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag Mariano Benedicto, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta.Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a senior partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at the Philippine Plaza so that some members of his law firm could campaign for the Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989, pp. 7678) during the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention. Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning, members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Drilon and the members of her slate, two of whom Jose Grapilon and Simeon Datumanong are Sigma Rhoans. They consider Atty. Drilon as a "sigma rho sister," her husband being a sigma rhoan.Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for the members of his own firm who attended the legal aid seminar and the convention. He made the reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he paid P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp. 30-34).Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during the convention, by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like Atty. Albacite his former teacher (but the latter was already committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy Fortes, a classmate of his in the U.P. College of Law (t. t.s.n. July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39).(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE.Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. He made a downpayment of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on April 20, 1989, and P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of P57,632.45.Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr. Ramon Jacinto, the sales department manager, credit manager, and reservation manager, respectively of the Hyatt, testified that Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-Flores, F-Jacinto G-Ocampo).As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms for those who committed themselves to his candidacy.The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis Habanel B. Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco, Candido Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion, Q. Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, Zoilo Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun, A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada.(6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta DrilonIn violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government' (Sec. 14[c], Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he took a leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho, Secretary Benedicto explained: "More than the husband of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the significance there is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho."He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio, Nilo Pena, Amy Wong, Atty. Grapilon, Victor Lazatin, and Boy Reyno. They assessed the progress of the campaign, and measured the strengths and weaknesses of the other groups The group had sessions as early as the later part of May.Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P23,110 during the 2-day IBP convention/election. A total of 113 phone calls (amounting to Pl,356) were recorded as emanating from his room.Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the names of Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor, Eastern Mindanao) and Amy Wong (candidate for Governor, Metro Manila). These two rooms served as the "action center' or "war room" where campaign strategies were discussed before and during the convention. It was in these rooms where the supporters of the Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio, Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot their moves.(7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to vote for or support them, but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the delinquent dues of another, because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in March, April, May during any election year. This year, the collections increased by P100,000 over that of last year (a non-election year from Pl,413,425 to Pl,524,875 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 25).(8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws).On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies of a leaflet entitled "My Quest," as wen as, the lists of his slate. Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and bio-data.The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from P15,000 to P20,000. They were printed by his own printing shop.(9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on the convention floor. Atty. Carpio noted that there were more campaign materials distributed at the convention site this year than in previous years. The election was more heated and expensive (t.s.n. July 6,1989, p. 39).Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the IBP Rizal Chapter, and a candidate for chairman of the House of Delegates on Nisce's ticket, testified that campaign materials were distributed during the convention by girls and by lawyers. He saw members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 142-145).(10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo Capulong, urged him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of Delegates and to run as vice-chairman in Violy Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 137, 149).Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP Chapter, recalled that in the third week of May 1989, after the Tripartite meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at the Green Valley Country Club in Baguio City, she met Atty. Drilon, together with two labor officers of Region 1, Attys. Filomeno Balbin and Atty. Mansala Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty. Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine Plaza where a room would be available for her. Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist her support during the chapter presidents' meeting to choose their nominee for governor for the Northern Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-54).Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial Magsino, who had earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed his mind when he was offered a judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly hearsay). When Nisce confronted Magsino about the alleged offer, the latter denied that there was such an offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Nalapo an IBP candidate who also withdrew.Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the race and refused to be nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104). Vicente P. Tordilla who was Nisce's candidate for Governor became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104).Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato City, Court Administrator Tiro went around saying, "I am not campaigning, but my wife is a candidate." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP chapters informed him that labor officials were campaigning for Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 109-110). He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.s.n. June 29,1989,p.111)Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for governor of the Western Visayas, expressed his disappointment over the IBP elections because some delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. He testified that when he arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine Plaza, but he declined the offer. During the legal aid seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine Plaza where a room had been reserved for him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 102-106).Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he already knew that the three candidates had their headquarters in separate hotels: Paculdo, at the Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the Hyatt. He knew about this because a week before the elections, representatives of Atty. Drilon went to Dumaguete City to campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA Law Office, accompanied by Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he said, offered to give him two PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 101-104). But he declined the offer because he was already committed to Atty. Nisce.Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May 31, 1989, a businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to convince him to vote for Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce.He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce because he and his two companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto) had earlier bought their own tickets for Manila (t.s.n. July 4, 1989, p. 101).SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURREDBY THE CANDIDATESAtty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000 during his three weeks of campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol Bar Association (of which he was the chapter president) contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar Association is a voluntary bar association composed of Quezon City lawyers.He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the provinces (Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain Province and Bulacan) (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 9-14).Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. This does not include the expenses for his campaign which began several months before the June 3rd election, and his purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates.The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. Drilon's camp, showed that her campaign rang up over P600,000 in hotel bills. Atty. Callanta paid P316,411.53 for the rooms, food, and beverage consumed by Atty. Drilon's supporters, but still left an unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at convention's end.FINDINGS.From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws.The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal candidates (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The Philippine Plaza, the Holiday Inn and The Hyatt the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein; the island hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member House of Delegates that elects the national officers and regional governors; the formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo or Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the presidential candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket to enable them to "assess their chances" among the chapter presidents in the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and her group; the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to delegates (and some families who accompanied them) in exchange for their support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another for some rumored consideration; all these practices made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process.The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions, denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the campaign. Disdain CONCLUSIONS.It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers. The much coveted "power" erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office might have caused the corruption of the IBP elections. To impress upon the participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of the misconduct which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP and reduce, if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering for the top positions in the organization which, as the recently concluded elections revealed, spawned unethical practices which seriously diminished the stature of the IBP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby annulled.2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) of the following national officers:(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;(b) the IBP president; and(c) the executive vice-president, be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be restored. The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run for election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:Section 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall beex oficioVice-President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board.6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of Delegates.'7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:Section 37. Composition of the Board. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the region.9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following provision as part of the first paragraph:No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an election year.11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI should be as they are hereby deleted.All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the Resolutionen bancof this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified.12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months, after the promulgation of the Court's resolution in this case. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-president. In these special elections, the candidates in the election of the national officers held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with any of the irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not present themselves as candidate for any position.13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other measures as are warranted in the premises.SO ORDERED.FIRST DIVISIONRE: REPORT ON THEA.M.No. P-06-2177FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED(Formerly A.M. No. 06-4-268-RTC)ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTSOF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO,CLERK OF COURT IV,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,ORAS, EASTERN SAMARPresent:PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,CORONA,AZCUNA andGARCIA,JJ.Promulgated:April 19, 2007x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xR E S O L U T I O NCORONA,J.:In our resolution dated June 27, 2006, we found Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody as required by OCA Circular No. 8A-93.[1]We ordered him to pay a fine ofP10,000 for his transgression. The matter did not end there, however. Because his malfeasanceprima faciecontravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01[2]of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. Atty. Kho submitted his explanation in compliance with our directive.We shall now resolve this pending matter and bring to a close this regrettable chapter in his career as a government lawyer.In his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained, however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit.Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remitP65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities[3]and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.RULE 1.01.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.It is no accident that these are the first edicts laid down in the Code of Professional Responsibility for these are a lawyers foremost duties. Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law.They are expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation.[4]This, in fact, is what a lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes entails.The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct.[5]By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful.[6]It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it.[7]Thus, the presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to account. However, his candid and repentant admission of his error, his lack of intent to gain and the fact that this is his first offense should temper his culpability considerably. Under the circumstances, a fine ofP5,000 should suffice.WHEREFORE, Atty. Raquel G. Kho is hereby foundGUILTYof unlawful conduct in violation of the Attorneys Oath, Section 20(a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.He is ordered to pay aFINEofP5,000 within ten days from receipt of this resolution.The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is herebyDIRECTEDto deduct from Atty. Khos accrued leave credits as a former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar the fines imposed in this resolution and in the resolution dated June 27, 2006.SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONA.C. No, 6854 April 25, 2007[Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1380]JUAN DULALIA, JR.,Complainant,vs.ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ,Respondent.D E C I S I O NCARPIO MORALES,J.:Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan (respondent), is charged by Juan Dulalia, Jr. (complainant) of violation Rules 1.01,16.02,2and 7.033of the Code of Professional Responsibility.The facts which gave rise to the filing of the present complaint are as follows:Complainants wife Susan Soriano Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the requirements for the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan, reading as follows, quoted verbatim:x x x xThis is in behalf of the undersigned himself and his family, Gregoria F. Soriano, Spouses David Perez and Minerva Soriano-Perez and Family and Mr. and Mrs. Jessie de Leon and family, his relatives and neighbors.It has been more than a month ago already that the construction of the building of the abovenamed person has started and that the undersigned and his family, and those other families mentioned above are respective owners of the residential houses adjoining that of the high-rise building under construction of the said Mrs. Soriano-Dulalia. There is no need to mention theunbearable nuisances that it creates and its adverse effects to the undersigned and his above referred to clients particularly the imminent danger and damage to their properties, health and safety.It was represented that the intended construction of the building would only be a regular and with standard height building and not a high rise onebut an inspection of the same would show otherwise. Note that its accessory foundation already occupies portion of the vacant airspace of the undersigneds residential house in particular, which readily poses danger to their residential house and life.Toavert the occurrence of the above danger and damage to property, loss of lifeand for the protection of the safety of all the people concerned, they are immediately requesting for your appropriate action on the matter please at your earliest opportune time.Being your co-municipal official in the Municipal Government of Meycauayan who is the Chief Legal Counsel of its Legal Department, and by virtue of Sub par. (4), Paragraph (b), Section 481 of the Local Government Code of 1991, he is inquiring if there was already full compliance on the part of the owner of the Building under construction with therequirementsprovided for in Sections 301, 302 and 308 of the National Building Code and on the part of your good office, your compliance with the provisions of Sections 303 and 304 of the same foregoing cited Building Code.Please be reminded of the adverse and unfavorable legal effect of the non-compliance with said Sections 301, 302, 303 and 304 of the National Building Code by all the parties concerned. (Which are not confined only to penalties provided in Sections 211 and 212 thereof.)x x x x4(Emphasis and underscoring partly in the original, partly supplied)By complainants claim, respondent opposed the application for building permit because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to respondents marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano, respondents marriage with Carolina Agaton being still subsisting.5To the complaint, complainant attached a copy of his Complaint Affidavit6he filed against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3 (e)7of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 4 (a) and (c)8of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).9By Report and Recommendation dated May 6, 2005,10the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, through Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, recommended the dismissal of the complaint in light of the following findings:The complaint dealt with mainly on the issue that respondent allegedly opposes the application of his wife for a building permit for the construction of their commercial building. One of the reason[s] stated by the complainant was that his wife was not in favor of Imeldas relationship with respondent who is a married man. And the other reason is that respondent was not authorized to represent his neighbors in opposing the construction of his building.From the facts and evidence presented, we findrespondent to have satisfactorily answered all the charges and accusations of complainant. We find no clear, convincing and strong evidence to warrant the disbarment or suspension of respondent. An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence.In the absence of the required evidence, the presumption of innocence on the part of the lawyer continues and the complaint against him should be dismissed(In re De Guzman, 55 SCRA 1239; Balduman vs. Luspo, 64 SCRA 74; Agbayani vs. Agtang, 73 SCRA 283).x x x x.11(Underscoring supplied)By Resolution of June 25, 2005,12the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala.Hence, the present Petition for Review13filed by complainant.Complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a second marriage with Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting.Complainant further maintains that respondent used his influence as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan to oppose his wifes application for building permit, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.And for engaging in the practice of law while serving as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 7.03.To his Comment,14respondent attached the July 29, 200515Joint Resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissing complainants complaint for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 and Section 4 (a) and (c) of RA 6713, the pertinent portion of which joint resolution reads:x x x A perusal of the questioned letter dated September 13, 2004 of herein respondent Atty. Pablo Cruz addressed to the Building officialappears to be not an opposition for the issuance of complainants building permit, but rather toredress a wrong and an inquiry as to whether compliance with the requirements for the construction of an edifice has been met. In fact, the Office of the Building Official after conducting an investigation found out that there was [a] violation of the Building Code for constructing without a building permit committed by herein complainants wife Susan Dulalia. Hence, a Work Stoppage Order was issued. Records disclose fu[r]ther [that] it was only after the said violation had been committed that Susan Dulalia applied for a building permit. As correctly pointed out by respondent, the same is being processed pending approval by the Building Official and not of the Municipal Zoning Administrator as alleged by complainant. Anent the allegation that respondent was engaged in the private practice of his law profession despite being employed in the government as Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, the undersigned has taken into consideration the explanation and clarification made by the respondent to be justifiable and meritorious.Aside from the bare allegations of herein complainant, there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate the complaints against the respondent.16(Underscoring supplied)After a review of the record of the case, this Court finds the dismissal of the charges of violating Rules 6.02 and 7.03 in order.Indeed, complaint failed to prove that respondent used his position as Municipal Legal Officer to advance his own personal interest against complainant and his wife.As for respondents September 13, 2004 letter, there is nothing to show that he opposed the application for building permit. He just inquired whether complainants wife fully complied with the requirements provided for by the National Building Code, on top of expressing his concerns about "the danger and damages to their properties, health and safety" occasioned by the construction of the building.Besides, as reflected above, the application for building permit was filed on September 28, 2004,17whereas the questioned letter of respondent was priorly written and received on September 13, 2004 by the Municipal Engineer/ Building Official, who on the same day, ordered an inspection and issued a Cease and Desist Order/Notice stating that "[f]ailure to comply with th[e] notice shall cause this office to instate proper legal action against you."18Furthermore, as the Certification dated April 4, 200519from the Office of the Municipal Engineer showed, complainants wife eventually withdrew the application as she had not yet secured clearances from the Municipal Zoning Administrator and from the barangay where the building was to be constructed.Respecting complainants charge that respondent engaged in an unauthorized private practice of law while he was the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, a position coterminous to that of the appointing authority, suffice it to state that respondent proffered proof that his private practice is not prohibited.20It is, however, with respect to respondents admitted contracting of a second marriage while his first marriage is still subsisting that this Court finds respondent liable, for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada, USA,21when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect.22He invokes good faith, however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code.23For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification thereunder that it should not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes "conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community."24Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.25InSt. Louis University Laboratory High School v. De la Cruz,26this Court declared that the therein respondents act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting constituted immoral conduct, for which he was suspended for two years after the mitigating following circumstances were considered:a. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period of almost seven (7) years, he has not been romantically involved with any woman;b. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his wife, whom he described to be very intelligent person;c. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child;d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry (sic) with relation to his wife;e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have parted ways when the mother and child went to Australia;f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.27In respondents case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable provision when he contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him, an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no showing that he was romantically involved with any woman. And, it is undisputed that his first wife has remained an absentee even during the pendency of this case.As noted above, respondent did not deny he contracted marriage with Imelda Soriano. The community in which they have been living in fact elected him and served as President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter from 1997-1999 and has been handling free legal aid cases.Respondents misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the time he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards his second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may not go scotfree.As early as 1957, this Court has frowned on the act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place as being contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.28In another vein, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.Respondents claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith."Aproposis this Courts pronouncement inSantiago v. Rafanan:29It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law.This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments,recent enactmentsand jurisprudence.It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles.Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.30(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)WHEREFORE,respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. He is WARNED that a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts throughout the country.SO ORDERED.FIRST DIVISIONPEDRO L. LINSANGAN,A.C. No. 6672Complainant,Present:PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,CARPIO,-v e r s u s-CORONA,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO andBERSAMIN,JJ.ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,Respondent.Promulgated:September 4, 2009x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xR E S O L U T I O NCORONA,J.:This is a complaint for disbarment[1]filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients[2]to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance[3]and expeditious collection on their claims.[4]To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages.To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit[5]of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan ofP50,000. Complainant also attached respondents calling card:[6]FrontNICOMEDES TOLENTINOLAW OFFFICECONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICESW/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEFe Marie L. LabianoParalegal1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01Tel: 362-78206th Ave., cor M.H. Del PilarFax: (632) 362-7821Grace Park, Caloocan CityCel.: (0926) 2701719BackSERVICES OFFERED:CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCETO OVERSEAS SEAMENREPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATHAND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMSABROAD.(emphasis supplied)Hence, this complaint.Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7]The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[8]Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and recommendation,[9]found that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02[10]and other canons[11]of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138[12]of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we modify the recommended penalty.The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainants professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR.And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.[13]To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called.[14]Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides: RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.[15]Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.[16]Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment)[17]as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty.[18]Complainant presented substantial evidence[19](consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals suits.Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.[20]Again the Court notes that respondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office.[21]Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client.The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[22]It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause.If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.[23]Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.[24]As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice[25]which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment.[26]Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist.The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.[27]For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:(a)lawyers name;(b)name of the law firm with which he is connected;(c)address;(d)telephone number and(e)special branch of law practiced.[28]Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance. The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.WHEREFORE,respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is herebySUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for a period of one yeareffective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He isSTERNLY WARNEDthat a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.SO ORDERED.

EN BANCROLANDO B. PACANA, JR.,Complainant,- versus -ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ,Respondent.A.C. No. 8243Present:PUNO,C.J.,QUISUMBING,YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO,CORONA,CARPIO MORALES,CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, JR.,NACHURA,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,BRION,*PERALTA, andBERSAMIN,JJ.Promulgated:July 24, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xDECISIONPER CURIAM:This case stems from an administrative complaint[1]filed by Rolando Pacana, Jr. against Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez charging the latter with flagrant violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[2]Complainant alleges that respondent committed acts constituting conflict of interest, dishonesty, influence peddling, and failure to render an accounting of all the money and properties received by her from complainant.On January 2, 2002, complainant was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications Corporation (MCC). MCC is an affiliate company of Multitel International Holdings Corporation (Multitel). Sometime in July 2002, MCC changed its name to Precedent Communications Corporation (Precedent).[3]According to complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel was besieged by demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure of its investment schemes. He alleges that he earned the ire of Multitel investors after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of Precedent and after being appointed as trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00) deposited at Real Bank.Distraught, complainant sought the advice of respondent who also happened to be a member of the Couples for Christ, a religious organization where complainant and his wife were also active members. From then on, complainant and respondent constantly communicated, with the former disclosing all his involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents relation with Multitel. Respondent gave legal advice to complainant and even helped him prepare standard quitclaims for creditors. In sum, complainant avers that a lawyer-client relationship was established between him and respondent although no formal document was executed by them at that time. A Retainer Agreement[4]dated January 15, 2003 was proposed by respondent. Complainant, however, did not sign the said agreement because respondent verbally asked for One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as acceptance fee and a 15% contingency fee upon collection of the overpayment made by Multitel to Benefon,[5]a telecommunications company based inFinland.Complainant found the proposed fees to be prohibitive and not within his means.[6]Hence, the retainer agreement remained unsigned.[7]After a few weeks, complainant was surprised to receive a demand letter from respondent[8]asking for the return and immediate settlement of the funds invested by respondents clients in Multitel. When complainant confronted respondent about the demand letter, the latter explained that she had to send it so that her clients defrauded investors of Multitel would know that she was doing something for them and assured complainant that there was nothing to worry about.[9]Both parties continued to communicate and exchange information regarding the persistent demands made by Multitel investors against complainant. On these occasions, respondent impressed upon complainant that she can closely work with officials of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Bureau of Immigration and Deportations (BID),[10]and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)[11]to resolve complainants problems. Respondent also convinced complainant that in order to be absolved from any liability with respect to the investment scam, he must be able to show to the DOJ that he was willing to divest any and all of his interests in Precedent including the funds assigned to him by Multitel.[12]Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for safekeeping to be used only for his case whenever necessary. Complainant agreed and gave her an initial amount ofP900,000.00 which was received by respondent herself.[13]Sometime thereafter, complainant again gave respondentP1,000,000.00.[14]Said amounts were all part of Precedents collections and sales proceeds which complainant held as assignee of the companys properties.[15]When complainant went to the United States (US), he received several messages from respondent sent through electronic mail (e-mail) and short messaging system (SMS, or text messages) warning him not to return to the Philippines because Rosario Baladjay, president of Multitel, was arrested and that complainant may later on be implicated in Multitels failed investment system. Respondent even said that ten (10) arrest warrants and a hold departure order had been issued against him. Complainant, thereafter, received several e-mail messages from respondent updating him of the status of the case against Multitel and promised that she will settle the matter discreetly with government officials she can closely work with in order to clear complainants name.[16]In two separate e-mail messages,[17]respondent again asked money from complainant,P200,000 of which was handed by complainants wife while respondent was confined in Saint Lukes Hospital after giving birth,[18]and anotherP700,000 allegedly to be given to the NBI.[19]Through respondents persistent promises to settle all complainants legal problems, respondent was able to convince complainant who was still in theUSto execute a deed of assignment in favor of respondent allowing the latter to retrieve 178 boxes containing cellular phones and accessories stored in complainants house and inside a warehouse.[20]He also signe