Spouses Yu vs PalanaFacts: Complainants met a certain Mr. Mark
Anthony U. Uy (Mr. Uy) who introduced himself as the Division
Manager of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation
(Wealth Marketing). Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants, together
with other investors, to invest a minimum amount ofP100,000.00 or
its dollar equivalent with said company. They were made to believe
that the said company had the so-called "stop-loss mechanism". It
turned out, however, that Wealth Marketings promises were false and
fraudulent. They discovered that Wealth Marketing had already
ceased its operation and a new corporation was formed named Ur-Link
Corporation (Ur-Link) which supposedly assumed the rights and
obligations of the former. Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office
where they met the respondent. As Wealth Marketings Chairman of the
Board of Directors, respondent assured the complainants that
Ur-Link would assume the obligations of the former company.To put a
semblance of validity to such representation, respondent signed an
Agreementto that effect which, again, turned out to be another ploy
to further deceive the investors.This prompted the complainants to
send demand letters to Wealth Marketings officers and directors
which remained unheeded. They likewise lodged a criminal complaint
for syndicated estafa against the respondent and his co-accused.
Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into
hiding and has been successful in defying the law, to this
dateIssues W/N respondent should be disbarredHeld: Yes. The fact
that the criminal case against the respondent involving the same
set of facts is still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent,
being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct
from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A
criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question
even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the
administrative proceedings. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides:A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do soThe Court notes that this is not
the first time that respondent is facing an administrative case,
for he had been previously suspended from the practice of law in
Samala v. Palaaand Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaa.In
Samala, respondent also played an important role in a corporation
known as First Imperial Resources Incorporated (FIRI), being its
legal officer. As in this case, respondent committed the same
offense by making himself part of the money trading business when,
in fact, said business was not among the purposes for which FIRI
was created. Respondent was thus meted the penalty of suspension
for three (3) years with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts would be dealt with more severely.Likewise, in Tejada,
he was suspended for six (6) months for his continued refusal to
settle his loan obligationsSamala vs PalanaFacts: Complainant was
looking for a company where he could invest his dollar savings.
Respondent assured him that through FIRI he would be directly
putting his investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited, a
reputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has been in the
foreign exchange business for 13 years. Due to the personal
representations and assurances of respondent, Agustin, and Bernal,
complainant was convinced and he invested his dollar savings.
Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. On
April 15, 2001, complainant asked Agustin when his money would be
returned. Agustin told him that the request was sent to Thomas Yiu
of Eastern Vanguard at Ortigas Center. Complainant went to see
Thomas Yiu at his office. Yiu was surprised when he saw the
documents involving complainant's investment. Yiu phoned Agustin
and demanded an explanation as to where the money was. Agustin said
that he would return complainant's investment at FIRI's office in
Makati. On the same day, in the presence of respondent, Agustin
delivered to complainant a check in the amount ofP574,045.09, as
the peso equivalent of complainant's investment with FIRI. On May
2, 2001, the said check was dishonored because it was drawn against
insufficient funds. Complainant informed respondent of the dishonor
of the check. Respondent assured him that the check would be
replaced. On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI,
gave complainantP250,000 in cash and a check in the amount
ofP329,045.09. Respondent told complainant that the check was
signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his (respondent's)
presence and assured complainant that the check would be funded.
But on June 28, 2001, the check was dishonored because it was drawn
against insufficient fund. In an Order dated January 27, 2003,
Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez required respondent
to submit his Answer to the Complaint within 15 days from receipt
thereof. Despite receipt of said order as evidenced by a registry
return receipt dated February 3, 2003, respondent did not submit an
Answer. The case was referred to Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of
the Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. Respondent
failed to appear when the case was set for hearing on April 8,
2003, despite due notice. Hence, respondent was declared in default
and the case was heardex parte.Issue: W/N respondent should be
suspended from the practice of lawHeld: Yes. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. To
this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal
fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence
of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession. In this case, respondent assured complainant that by
investing his dollar savings with FIRI, his investment was in a
stable company, even if, as it was later discovered, the by-laws of
FIRI prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange
business and its primary purpose is "to act as consultant in
providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis related
to partnership and so on."When complainant decided to withdraw his
investment from FIRI, the first check given to him in the amount of
his total investment bounced. Thereafter, respondent, as legal
officer of FIRI, gave complainantP250,000 in cash and a check
forP329,045.09. Respondent assured complainant that the second
check was a "good check" and that it was signed by Paul Desiderio,
the alleged president of FIRI. However, the said check bounced
because it was drawn against insufficient funds, and the drawer of
the check, Paul Desiderio, could not be located when sought to be
served a warrant of arrest since his identity was unknown and his
residential address was found to be non-existent.Hence, it is clear
that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI
caused material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent
failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and lessened the confidence of the public in the honesty and
integrity of the same.Spouses Tejada vs PalanaFacts: Respondent
lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana taking advantage of his special
knowledge as a lawyer represented to the petitioners that he has an
alleged parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(73196) 16789 and that he needs an amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could reconstitute the torrens title
on the same. Respondent then induced by sweet promises and
assurances petitioners spouses to finance such undertaking with a
solemn commitment on his part that after he has already
reconstituted such torrens title, he will deliver the same to the
petitioners spouses as security for the amount they had financed.
However, after respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana had gotten
the P100,000.00 amount from the petitioner spouses, respondent from
that time on up to the present had intentionally evaded the
performance of his due, just, legal and demandable obligations to
petitioner spouses.It turned out that all his assurances that he
had a torrens title, he will reconstitute the same and deliver an
amount of P170,000.00 to petitioner spouses were all fraudulent
representations on his part or else were only fictitious in
character to defraud petitioner spouses of their hard owned monies.
Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the
complaint as required by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP. Respondent likewise failed to appear on the scheduled date of
the mandatory conference despite due noticeIssue: W/N respondent
should be suspendedHeld: Yes. Respondent, like all other members of
the bar, is expected to always live up to the standards embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following
Canons, viz: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.Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall
not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.CANON 7 A lawyer shall at
all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.Rule 7.03 A lawyer
shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is
expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." The
nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he shall be of
good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in
the profession. In the instant case, respondents unjustified
withholding of petitioners money years after it became due and
demandable demonstrates his lack of integrity and fairness, and
this is further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges
brought against him. Instead of meeting the charges head on,
respondent did not bother to file an answer nor did he participate
in the proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his
conduct.Guevarra vs EalaFacts: He first met respondent in January
2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene)
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had
three children. After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000,
complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some
of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted
them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social
card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when
unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the
day of his wedding to Irene.Issue:W/N Eala should be
disbarredHeld:Yes. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala,
isDISBARREDfor grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of
office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. That the marriage
between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared voidab
initiois immaterial.The acts complained of took placebeforethe
marriage was declared null and void.43As a lawyer, respondent
should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage.44In carrying on an
extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration
that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite
respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an
institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness
to be a lawyer.Advincula vs MacabataFacts: Sometime on 1st week of
December 2004 complainant [Cynthia Advincula] seek the legal advice
of the respondent [Atty. Macabata], regarding her collectibles from
Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, he sent Demand Letter
dated December 11, 2004 (copy attached as Annex "I") to the
concerned parties.On February 10, 2005, met (sic) at Zensho
Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility
of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because
they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner,
respondent sent complainant home and while she is about to step out
of the car, respondent hold (sic) her arm and kissed her on the
cheek and embraced her very tightly.Again, on March 6, 2005, at
about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks
coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of
the complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, respondent
offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they met.
Along the way, complainant was wandering (sic) why she felt so
sleepy where in fact she just got up from bed a few hours ago. At
along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe St., in
San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost restless
respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold (sic) her face and
kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast.
Complainant even in a state of shocked (sic) succeeded in resisting
his criminal attempt and immediately manage (sic) to go (sic) out
of the car.Issue: Whether respondent committed acts that are
grossly immoral or which constitute serious moral depravity that
would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of
lawHeld: No. But respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED to be more
prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients with a STERN
WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed on him for any
repetition of the same or similar offense in the future. Guided by
the definitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on
the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie,27forms
of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of respondent, though,
in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on
the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even if considered
offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly
immoralHeirs of Villanueva vs Atty. BeradioFacts: During their
lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land
in Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 2522. Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas in 1974.
Their five children, namely, Simeona, Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and
Florencia, survived them. On 22 May 1984, Alfonso executed an
Affidavit of Adjudication1(affidavit of adjudication) stating that
as "the only surviving son and sole heirs (sic)" of the spouses
Villanueva, he was adjudicating to himself the parcel of land under
OCT No. 2522. Alfonso then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale2(deed
of sale) on 5 July 1984, conveying the property to Adriano
Villanueva. Respondent appeared as notary public on both the
affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale. Contrary to the
misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive
at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed
of sale, as were descendants of the other children of the spouses
Villanueva. Complainants claimed that respondent was aware of this
fact, as respondent had been their neighbor in Balungao,
Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent constantly
mingled with their family. Complainants accused respondent of
knowing the "true facts and surrounding circumstances" regarding
the properties of the spouses Villanueva, yet conspiring with
Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares in the
propertyIssue: W/N respondent should be disbarred or suspendedHeld:
WHEREFORE, for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, weREVOKEthe commission of respondent
Atty. Salud P. Beradio as Notary Public, if still existing,
andDISQUALIFYher from being commissioned a notary public for one
(1) year. We furtherSUSPENDrespondent from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective upon finality of this decision. On its
face, Alfonsos affidavit does not appear to contain any "illegal or
immoral" declaration. However, respondent herself admitted that she
knew of the falsity of Alfonsos statement that he was the "sole
heir" of the spouses Villanueva. Respondent therefore notarized a
document while fully aware that it contained a material
falsehood,i.e., Alfonsos assertion of status as sole heir. The
affidavit of adjudication is premised on this very assertion. By
this instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate
all to himself, to the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly
afterwards, respondent notarized the deed of sale, knowing that the
deed took basis from the unlawful affidavit of adjudication. Where
admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false
statement or information contained in the instrument to be
notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it,
the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process
may be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents
diminished. In this case, respondents conduct amounted to a breach
ofCanon1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires
lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the
Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.Samala vs ValenciaFacts: Before us is
a complaint1dated May 2, 2001 filed by Clarita J. Samala
(complainant) against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for
Disbarment on the following grounds: (a) serving on two separate
occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) knowingly
misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c)
initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental
fees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring
illegitimate children.Issue: W/N respondent should be suspended
from the practice of law.Held: Yes. On having a reputation for
being immoral by siring illegitimate children.We find respondent
liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.During the
hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by
Teresita Lagmay who are all over 20 years of age,48while his first
wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children
by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age,
and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in
1998.49Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one
of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does
not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship50and does not
consider the latter as his second family.51He reasoned that he was
not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in
Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.52In this case, the admissions
made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on the
charge of immorality. During the hearing, respondent did not show
any remorse. He even justified his transgression by saying that he
does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact
that he sired three children by the latter, he does not consider
them as his second family. It is noted that during the hearing,
respondent boasts in telling the commissioner that he has two
houses - in Muntinlupa, where his first wife lived, and in
Marikina, where Lagmay lives.53It is of no moment that respondent
eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first wife. The
fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting
standard of morality and decorum required of the legal
profession.Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the
degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral,
yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has
been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.54Thus, in several cases, the
Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping a
mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the
community.55That respondent subsequently married Lagmay in 1998
after the death of his wife and that this is his first infraction
as regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.ACCORDINGLY,
the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. ValenciaGUILTYof
misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He isSUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law
for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein
Resolution.St. Louis vs Dela CruzFacts: This is a disbarment case
filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando
C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following
grounds:1) Gross Misconduct:From the records of the case, it
appears that there is a pending criminal case for child abuse
allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; a pending
administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and
Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU for his
alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of misappropriating money
supposedly for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by
SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region,
on alleged illegal deduction of salary by respondent.2) Grossly
Immoral Conduct:In contracting a second marriage despite the
existence of his first marriage; and3) Malpractice:In notarizing
documents despite the expiration of his commission.According to
complainant, respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera on
31 May 1982 at Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas
W. Macaranas. He thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with
one Mary Jane Pascua, before the Honorable Judge Guillermo
Purganan. On 4 October 1994, said second marriage was subsequently
annulled for being bigamous.On the charge of malpractice,
complainant alleged that respondent deliberately subscribed and
notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to
1997, despite expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31
December 1987. A Certification1dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the
Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, to the
effect that respondent had not applied for commission as Notary
Public for and in the City of Baguio for the period 1988 to 1997.
Respondent performed acts of notarization,
Issue: W/N respondent is liable under Canon 1.01Held: Yes. The
Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a
document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when
he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act
without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making
it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for
all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall
squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By
acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do so,
the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.Donton vs TansingcoFacts: In 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. Complainant 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.
Issue:W/N respondent is violated canon 1.02Held: Yes. The 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.Ronquillo vs CezarFacts: In May 1999, complainants and
respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment.1For the price
ofP1.5M, respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his
rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75
Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City. Respondent also
obligated himself to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract
to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer, dated
April 19, 1996. Upon full payment of the purchase price, respondent
further undertook to have Crown Asia execute a Deed of Absolute
Sale over the property in favor of the complainants. Complainants
subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent
has not paid in full the price of the townhouse at the time he
executed the Deed of Assignment. Respondent also failed to deliver
to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly
executed with Crown Asia. For these reasons, complainant Marili
Ronquillo ordered the bank to stop payment on the second check she
issued to respondent in the amount ofP187,500.00. On March 6, 2000,
complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing
him that they were still willing to pay the balance of the purchase
price of the townhouse on the condition that respondent work on
Crown Asias execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
In the alternative, complainants demanded the return of the amount
ofP937,500.00, plus legal interest, within ten days.3The amount
ofP937,500.00 represents theP750,000.00 down payment and the first
quarterly installment ofP187,500.00 which complainants paid
respondent.In a letter dated May 2, 2000, addressed to
complainants,4respondent claimed that he was "working now on a
private project which hopefully will be realized not long from
now," and requested for "a period of twenty days from May 15, 2000
within which to either completely pay Crown Asia or return the
money at your (complainants) option." The period lapsed but
respondent did not make good his promise to pay Crown Asia in full,
or return the amount paid by complainants.On February 21, 2002,
complainants counsel sent respondent a second letter5demanding the
return of the amount ofP937,500.00, including legal interest, for
failing to comply with his promise. The demand was unheeded.Hence,
this administrative complaint6that respondent engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Allegedly, respondent
violated his oath under Rule 1.01,Canon1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law.Issue: W/N respondent violated
Canon 1.01Held: Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
on any of the following grounds: (1)deceit; (2) malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office; (3)grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of
the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not
engage inunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitful conduct." "Conduct,"
as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance
of a lawyers professional duties. This Court has made clear in a
long line of cases7that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court.In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private
capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant Marili
representing to have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question. When he failed in his
undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be
gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property
over which one has no legal right of ownership. Respondent was
likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he
concealed this lack of right from complainants. He did not inform
the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of the
subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to
sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution
of the Deed of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the
purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to
it, made matters worse for him.Respondents adamant refusal to
return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she paid him,
which was the fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker for
ten (10) years, is morally reprehensible. By his actuations,
respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of morality
required by the Code of Professional Responsibility and violated
the trust and respect reposed in him as a member of the Bar, and an
officer of the court.
Tomlin vs MoyaFacts: Complainant averred that respondent
borrowed from him P600,000.00 partially covered by seven postdated
checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their
respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee
bank. Complainant made several demands, the last being a formal
letter4sent on September 25, 2002;5however, respondent still failed
and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason.
Consequently, complainant instituted a case for seven counts of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before the
Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.6In addition, he filed
the instant case for respondents disbarment.On December 1, 2003,
respondent was directed to file his answer but instead he filed
several motions for extension of time to file a responsive
pleading7and a motion to dismiss complaint.8Respondent alleged that
the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule on
non-forum shopping. He argued that complainant did not inform the
IBP about the cases he filed for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against
respondent pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan.9Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative
case despite the pendency of the criminal cases is a form of
harassment which should not be allowed.Issue: W/N respondent is
violated the CPR W/N there is forum shoppingHeld: First issue -Yes.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not
only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith
and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.19Lawyers may be
disciplined whether in their professional or in their private
capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty,
probity and good demeanor.20Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his
profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of
the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is
an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law
and for the continuance of such privilege.21In the present case,
respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant but
offered no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay.
Complainant made several demands, both verbal and written, but
respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce. Although
he acknowledged his financial obligations to the complainant,
respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his debt. On
the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing nor shown
remorse for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross
misconduct.22Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a
lawyer to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As part of his duties,
he must promptly pay his financial obligationsSecond issue- No.
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion
in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by
appeal or certiorari) in another24or when he institutes two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable
disposition.25Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or
proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.26Moreover, Criminal
Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer
to the respondents act of making or drawing and issuance of
worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to
discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing
to pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.lavvph!1.netRespondent, being a member of the bar,
should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a
class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of criminal cases. The burden of proof in a criminal
case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative
case, only preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the
same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings.Soriano vs DizonFacts: Before us is a
Complaint-Affidavit1for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon, filed
by Roberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar Discipine (CBD) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Complainant alleges
that the conviction of respondent for a crime involving moral
turpitude, together with the circumstances surrounding the
conviction, violatesCanon1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;2and constitutes sufficient ground for his
disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.3Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer
to the Complaint, the CBD issued a Notice dated May 20, 2004,
informing him that he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing
had been scheduled for June 11, 2004.4After that hearing,
complainant manifested that he was submitting the case on the basis
of the Complaint and its attachments.5Accordingly, the CBD directed
him to file his Position Paper, which he did on July 27,
2004.6Afterwards, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.On
December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered her
Report and Recommendation, which was later adopted and approved by
the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2005-84 dated
March 12, 2005.In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged that
respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and that the conviction of the latter
for frustrated homicide,7which involved moral turpitude, should
result in his disbarmentIssue: W/N respondent should be
disbarredHeld: Yes. It is also glaringly clear that respondent
seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm18and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil
liabilities.19He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed
the lawful orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his
attorneys oath20and in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he
bound himself to "obey the laws of the land."Po Cham vs
PizzarroFacts: Complainant gives the following account of the facts
that spawned the filing of the present administrative
complaint.Sometime in July 1995, Emelita Caete (Caete), Elenita
Alipio (Alipio), and now deceased Mario Navarro (Navarro) who was
then the Municipal Assessor of Morong, Bataan, offered for sale to
him a parcel of land with an area of approximately forty (40)
hectares, identified as Lot 1683 of Cad. Case No. 262, situated at
Sitio Gatao, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan (the property).He having
expressed interest in the offer, Caete and Navarro arranged a
meeting between him and respondent at the latters residence in
Balanga, Bataan1where respondent categorically represented to him
that the property being offered for sale was alienable and
disposable.2Respondent in fact presented to him 1) Real Property
Tax Order of Payment3dated July 10, 1995 covering the property
signed by Edna P. Pizarro as Municipal Treasurer and Navarro as
Municipal Assessor; 2) a Deed of Absolute Sale4dated July 25, 1995
purportedly executed by the alleged previous actual occupant of the
property, one Jose R. Monzon (Monzon), transferring all his rights,
interest and possession thereover in favor of Virgilio Banzon
(Banzon), Rolando B. Zabala (Zabala) and respondent for an agreed
consideration ofP500,000.00; and 3) Special Power of Attorney5dated
July 25, 1995 executed by Banzon and Zabala authorizing him
(respondent
Issue: W/N respondent should be suspendedHeld: Yes. The Bar is
enjoined to maintain a high standard of not only legal proficiency
but of honesty and fair dealing.41Thus, a member should refrain
from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence
and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the legal profession.42The misconduct of a lawyer,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor
to thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his license and
the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or
suspension.43Thus, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as attorney on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral
conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5)
violation of the lawyers oath; 6) willful disobedience to any
lawful order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority.And he may be faulted
underCanon1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates a member of the Bar to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically
enjoins him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. "Conduct," as used in this rule, is not limited
to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of
professional duties. In the case at bar, as reflected above,
complainant presented certifications from the DENR that the
property is part of the public domain and not disposable as it is
within the Bataan National Park. Indeed, by virtue of Proclamation
No. 2445issued on December 1, 1945, all properties of the public
domain therein designated as part of the Bataan National Park were
withdrawn from sale, settlement or other disposition, subject to
private rights. On the other hand, respondent has utterly failed to
substantiate his documented claim of having irrevocable rights and
interests over the property which he could have conveyed to
complainant.E.g.,he could have presented any document issued by the
government conferring upon him and his alleged co-owners, or even
upon his alleged predecessors-in-interest, with any such right or
interest, but he presented none. He merely presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale purportedly executed by a certain Jose R. Monzon in
his, Banzons and Zabalas favor on July 25, 1995, a month shy of the
execution on August 21, 1995 of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor
of complainant. It is jurisprudentially established though that in
a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is
not blameless or isin pari delictoas this is not a proceeding to
grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law
profession of unworthy members to protect the public and the
courts
