Legal Ethics Case Digest[1]

Bar matter no. 914, 10/01/ 1999 Re: application for admission to the bar  Vs. Vicente d. Ching,applicant.

Facts: vicente d. Ching, a legitimate legitimate son of o f the spouses tat ching, a chinese citizen, a nd  priscila dulay, a filipina, was born in tubao ,la union on april apr il 11, 1964.since birth,ching has resided in the philippines. on july 17, 1998,ching 1998, ching , after graduated of bachelor o f laws course at st. Louis university in baguio city,filed an application to take the 1998 bar exam.the supreme court allowed him to take provided pro vided that he can produce proof p roof of his philippine citizenship.in compliance with said requirements,ching submitted the following following documents: docu ments: A.) Certification from board of accountancy of the prc showing that he is a certified  public accountant. B.) Voter certification from comelec tubao la union. union. C.) Certification that he served as sangguniang panlungsod member.. on april 5, 1999 ching was included included as one of the lucky passers of the bar exam and the schedule of their oath taking was on may 5, 1999 but he was not allowed to take his oath due the questionable citizenship issue.

Issue: is ching a filipino citizen? is his election to philippine citizenship within the reasonable time prescribed by the law?

Ruling: no.since the applicant was born on 1964,the governing charter with regards to citizenship issue is the 1935 constituti co nstitution.therefore on.therefore as what is provided by the said constitution,which said that the citizenship of a legitimate legitimate child born of a filipino mother  with an alien father followed the citizenship of the father unless upon reaching the age of  majority which is 21 years of age elected philippine citizenship.in the case at bar,ching did not elect his citizenship when he reach 21 years old but instead in 1999 which is 14 years after reaching the age o f majority which the court considered as not within the reasonable period of time considering the length of 14 years after he reaches 21 years old.in addition to that,the court co urt said that philippine citizenship can never be tr eated like commodity tha can be claimed when needed and supressed when convenient.in view of  the foregoing,the court deny vicente d. Ching¶s application for admission to the  philippine bar.

Romulo villa vs. Junel anthony ama, bar matter no. 674, 06/14/2005

Facts: on april 15, 2005,junel anthony d. Ama filed a petition for admission in the bar as successful passers of the 1992 bar exam.the said p etitioner together with the other  member of the aguila legis fraternity of ateneo de manila university was implicated and criminally charged with the death of jose villa.an amended information for serious  physical injury was filed in mtc caloocan city against the petitioner and another case of  homicide in rtc caloocan city.on april 16, 1993,the father of the victim filed a petition  praying that the petitioner be disallowed from taking lawyer¶s oath and signing the roll of  attorneys pending final judgment of the case filed against him.on february 8, 1996, the mtc acquitted him while the rtc rendered a guilty decision through conspiracy.the rtc decision was appealed in the ca and the latter set aside the lower courts decision rendering a guilty decision on slight physical injury under art.266 of rpc.he was ordered to pay a 30 thousand pesos jointly with the other accused as indemnity.instead of serving the 20 day imprisonment,he app ly for probation of rtc caloocan which granted him and terminating the case.

Issue: is the offense considered as grave violation of the moral sentiment of the community?or crime of moral turpitude?

Ruling: no,the court grant the petition of junel anthony d. Ama.he is hereby a llowed to take the lawyer¶s oath and sign t he roll of attorneys.the crime for which the petitoner was convicted was a light offense and cannot be considered as grave vioaltion of the moral sentiment of the people and cert ainly not a crime involving moral turpitude.

Adm. Case no. 1474, jan. 28, 2000 Cristino g. Calub, complainant Vs. Atty. Abraham a. Suller, respondent

Facts: in the morning of jan. 20, 1975 while the complainant was awa, atty. Suller went to complainant¶s house in aringay la union to borrow a blade.the respondent was a neighbor  and a family friend with the complainant.as he entered the house,the respondent started touching the private parts of the wife and threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse.as the complainant returned home to get money for the payment of the real estate taxes, he saw his wife with the respondent having a sexual intercourse.on jan. 23, 1975,the complainant filed a case o f rape in mtc of aringay, la union a nd later remanded to the cfi of agoo, la union.on june 3, 1975,the complainant filed a disbarment case

against the respondent before the supreme court.the cfi rendered an acquittal of the respondent and on march 3, 1993 the board of governors,ibp issued a resolution recommending a one(01) year suspension of the practice of law.

Issue: is the one(01) year suspension sufficient penalty for a lawyer¶s immoral act?

Ruling: no,the court decided that t he said suspension is not sufficient punishment for the immoral act of the respondent.the rape he commited though he was acquitted on the grounds of not proven beyond reasonable doubt is not determinative of the adminitrative case at bar.the testimonies of the complainant show that the respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor¶s wife without her  consent in her very home.the court further states that the said offense constitute serious moral depravity and the respondent is not worthy to remain member of the  bar.wherefore,respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.

Bar matter no. 1036, june 10, 2003 Donna marie s. Aguirre, complainant Vs. Edwin l. Rana,respondent

Facts: edwin l rana was among the passers of 2000 bar exam.one day before the scheduled mass oath taking of lawyers,complainant filed a petition before this court for  the denial of admission to the bar on the ground of respondent¶s unauthorized practice of  law, grave misconduct,violation of law and grave misrepresentation.on may 22, 2001 the court allowed respondent to take the oath taking but not yet allowed to sign the roll of  attorneys pending the cases filed against the latter.this scenario stemmed from may 2000 election wherein the respondent made some pleadings and memorandum appearing as counsel of one of the candidates even before he was able to take his oath and sign the roll of attorney.

Issue: is the respondent has the authority to practice law before his oath taking and signing of the roll of attorney?

Ruling: no,the act of the respondent is considered as a practice of law without an authority to performed with considering that he is not yet signed the roll of attorney as well as take his oath as a lawyer.those two are the essential requisites before you can  practice the law profession.the court states that a bar candidate does not acquire the right

to practice law simply by passing the bar exam.the practice of law is a pr ivileged that can  be withheld even from the o ne who passed the bar exams if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.wherefore,respondent is denied admission to the  philippine bar.

A.c.no. 5151, october 19, 2004 Tolentino vs. Atty. Norberto m. Mendoza

Facts: pedro g. Tolentino filed a complaint against atty. Mendoza for grossly immoral conduct and gross misconduct.the respondent was a former mtc judge who abandoned his wife in favor of his paramour who was also a married one.the two was openly and  publicly cohabitating with each other and has two children.the paramour declared at the  birth certificate of their children that they got married with the respondent sometime in 1986 to make it appear t hat their children are legitimate one.in addition to t hat,respondent also stated in his certificate of candidacy his legal w ife but declared it as separated.respondent filed a comments stressing that said complaints was po litically motivated and the evidence submitted were hearsay and violative of rule 24 of  administrative oder no. 1 series of 1993 therefore cannot be admitted as evidence.

Issue: is the act of the respondent an immoral one?

Ruling: yes, the court finds the act of the respondent as violative to the code of   prefessional responsibility that a lawyer shall not engage in an u nlawgul, deceitful and immoral act.the respondent has violated the said rule.the respondent¶s open and public cohabitation with his paramour is a mockery o f the fundamental institution of marriage, therefore ,the respondent is guilty of immorality and be suspended indefinitely from  practicing his profession until he submits satisfactory proof that he has aba ndoned his immoral course of conduct.

Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco martinez A.c.no.4585, november 12, 2004

Facts:

atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involv

Ing bp 22. He was also involved in another estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered on the victim of dona paz tragedy.the victim he represented filed a complaint  because of the compensation that the victim had received from sulpicio lines which was later deducted by atty. Martinez.on sept. 27, 2003 the ibp board of governors passed a resolution approving the report and the recommendation of its investigating commissioner.on dec. 3, 2003 respondent filed an mr and reinvestigation.

Issue: is the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral turpitude? is the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for disbarment?

Ruling: yes,the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports deceit and violation of his attorney¶s oath and code of professional responsibility.in this case, the court also finds disbarment as the appropriate penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

B.m.no.1678, dec. 17, 2007 Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Benjamin m. Dacanay, petitioner 

Facts: petitioner was admitted to the bar in march 1960.he practiced law until he migrated to canada in december 1998.he subsequently applied for canadian c itizenship and eventually approved in may 2004.on july 14, 2006 pursuant to ra 9225,pettioner  reacquired his philippine citizenship,on that day also he took his oath of allegiance to the  philippines.thereafter, he returned to the philippines and intend to resume his law  practice.

Issue: may a lawyer who has lost his filipino citizenship still practice law in the  philippines?

Ruling: no.since filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar,loss thereof  terminates membership in the philippine bar and, co nsequently,the privilege to engage in the practice of law.the practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigner.the court also stated the rules and condition to be meted out in attorneys and admission to the bar,citing section 2 of rule 138 of the rules of court.the petition was granted subject to the compliance of the conditions set forth in the rules of court.

A.c.no.8380 Arellano uniersity inc., complainant Vs. Atty. Leovigildo h. Mijares iii

Facts:sometime in january 2004,complainant engaged the services of the respondent for  securing a certificate of title covering dried up po rtion of the estero de san miguel that the university had been occupying.in the cmplaint for disbarment,the university states that they gave atty. Mijares 5 hundred thousand pesos as facilitating and processing cost.on  july 5, 2004,atty. Mijares informed the uniersity abo ut the progress of his work until the university demends from him a certain documents which would strenghten the progress of his work but to no avail.this prompted the complainant to terminate the respo ndent¶s services and demanded the latter the return of the 5 hundred thousand pro cessing cost for  the titling of driedup creek. Issue:is the respondent guilty of misappropriation of the money entrusted to him by his client for the titling of the dried up lot occupied by the university?

Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondent guilty of said act which is a violations of rules 101 and 102,canon 15,rule 1505,canon 16, rule1601 and 1603, and canon 18, rule 1804 of  the code of professional responsibility and imposes on h im the penalty of disbarment and directed also the respondent to return all the documents in his position covering the t itling matter that it referred to him.

Adm. Case no. 5364, aug. 20 2008 Juanita manaois, complainant Vs. Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent

Facts: complainant,a government employee work as a mail sorter in manila central post office.she applied for a loan thru t he assistance of atty. Deciembre in the amount o f 20 thousand pesos from rodella loans inc.as security of the loan,respondent required her to issue blank check that she would fill out according to their agreed monthly amortizations.notwithstanding upon full payment of the loan respondent did not return the remaining blank checks.respondent a lso made falsification of the amount of the check  and made it appear complainant had exchanged them for cash.the respondent filed several cases against the complainant pertaining to t he blank checks issuance as well as the loan  payments.the ibp board of go vernors investigate the matter.

Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?

Ruling. Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 1, rule 101 of  the code of professional responsibility.his conduct is a serious dishonest y and and  professionla misconduct,rendering him to be suspended indefinitely in pract icing law.

A.c.no. 7022, june 18, 2008 Marjorie f. Samaniego,complainant Vs. Atty. Andrew v. Ferrer, respondent

Facts: early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.subsequently,they cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born.the affair ended in 2000 and since then,respondent failed to supprot his daughter. ms. Samaniegao,filed a complaint against the respondent before the ibp commission on bar discipline. A member of the bar?

Issue: is the act of the respondent,constitute lacked of degree of morality required of the member of the bar?

Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondent¶s illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary actions.rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession,thus the court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the pract ice of law.

A.c.no.6505, sept. 11, 2008 Jessica uy, complainant Vs. atty. Emmanuel p. Sano,respondent

Facts: respondent was the counsel for pablo burgos,an intevenor of the civil case for  foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.in the course of the proceeding,respondent

 presented before the trila court a document of deed of absolute sale which he notarized on dec. 7, 2001.howewver,in a letter submitted by the clerk of court,it appear that the respondent was not issued a notarial commission on that year.hence,the instant administrative case.

Issue:is the act of notarizing after the expiration of respondent¶s notarial commission, a malpractice one?

Ruling:yes,the act of the respondents falls squarely within the pro hibition of rule 101,canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility as well as a violat ion of the lawyer¶s oath,to obey the laws,more specifically,the notarial law.the court also finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 7 of the same code which directs every lawyer  to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal peofession.the respondent is suspended for 6 months in the pract ice of law and a revocation of his notarial commission and disqualified for a reappointment of his notarial commission for 2 years.

A.c.no. 7781, sept. 12, 2008 Dela cruz vs. Atty jose r. Dimaano

Facts:the complainants filed a complaint for disbarment which stemmed from the notarial activity of the respondent in notarizing a document denominated as extra judicial settlement of the estate with waiver or rights purportedly executed by them and their  sister zenaida v.l.navarro.the complainants also further alleged that t he respondent had made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment po rtion of the notarized document,when he made it appear among other things,that complainants personally appear before him and that t hey affixed their signaturesnon the document in his  presence.in the process,respondent effectively enabled their sister, navarro,assume full ownership of their deceased parents property and sell the same to dpwh.the respondent admitted having a hand indeed in notarized it and notarized it in good faith relying on the representation and assurance of zenaida navarro.

Issue: whether or not the act of the respondent is a violation of notarial law?

Ruling: the court finds the respondent guilty for breach of the notarial law.lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the dut ies of  their offices,such duties being dictated by public p olicy and impressed with public interest.the court further ordered for the revocation of the notarial commission and disqualified him of practicing law for a period o f two years.

A.c.no. 6882, december 24, 2008 Marissa williams vs. Atty. Rodrigo icao

Facts:the complainnant,administratively charge the respondenta for braech of notarial law and for unlawful,dishonest,immoral and decitful conduct unbecoming of an attorney.this stemmed from notarization of the respondent of a dec laration of heirship and partition document signed by the signatories in his presence when in truth did not.in addition to that,there was also lacking of residence certificate as well as conspiracy with atty. Enriquez in the making false statement in the said documents.respondent on the ot her  hand,admitted that the document was not executed in his presence,claims that before he notarized itmthe parties thereto appeared before him and he ascertained their identities as well as of those of their witnesses and they e xplained to them the contents of the documents which they acknow ledge as true and correct.in defense of the ad ministrative case,respondent argued that the said offense has already prescribed given the rules of   procedure of commission on bar discipline.

Issue: is the act vioalative of the notarial law?

Ruling: yes, the court finds the respondent guilty for breach of the notarial law.it bears recalling that notarization is not an empty maeningless routinary act.it invested with substantive public interest,such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public.as a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith credit upon its face, notaries public must observe with utmost care t he basic requirements in the performance of their duties.the petition is granted suspending the respondent from practicing law for a  period of 1 year and his commission as notary public.

A.c.no.6148, feb. 27, 2004 Florence macarrubo vs. Atty. Edmundo macarrubo

Facts: the complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent alleging that respondent deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a

certain helen esperanza.this was also followed by a third time marriage transaction with  josephine constantino.the respondent anchored his defense on the annullment of the  previous marriage he entered as well as the existing annulment process of the t hird one.he further proved his constant support of their children in terms of educat ion and their  leisure.

Issue: is the act of the respondent in contracting several marriages constitute immorality despite the fact that those marriages was later dec lared annulled?

Ruling:yes,the courts find the respondent guilty for gross misconduct reflectings unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession.the annulment of his marriage with final judgment did not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety.in sum,respondent has breached the preceipts of the code of professional responsibility  particularly,rule 1.01,canon 7.01 rule 7.03 of the same code.the penalty recommended by the ibp which is 3 months suspension did not commensurate to the gravity of his conduct, and the court modified it into disbarment.

Adm. Case no.4749 jan. 20, 2001 Soliman m. Santos jr.,complainant Vs. Atty. Francisco r. Llamas,respondent

Facts: complainant filed a case of misrepresentation and non payment of bar  membership dues against the respondent.this is in relation to t he latter¶s pleadings which indicates only ³ibp rizal 259060´ of which he customarily done in 3 years without even indicating the proper ptr and ibp o.r. nos. And place of issuance in his pleadings.this matter is being brought in the context of rule 138 section 1 which stat es that only a duly admitted in the bar who is in good and regular standing is entiltled to practice law.the complainant capitalizes on the fact that respondent has been delinquent in his dues.the respondent on the other hand,stresses his being a senior citizen which under t he exempt him from paying income tax and also further argued that since 1992,he had only a limited  practice of law and his principal occupat ion is in farming.

Issue: is the act of the respondent in his plaeadings constitute misrepresentation to the  public and misleading the court?

Ruling: the court agreed to the recommendation of the ibp.its indication of the p leading  by the word´ibp-rizal259060´is tantamount to misrepresentation as well as misleading

the court and a clear violation of the code o f professional responsibility.his failure to pay his dues and misrepresentation to the co urt,merit the most severe penalty.however,in view of his advanced age, and willingness to pay his dues and plea,the court resolved to imposed a penalty of suspension of practice of law for one year or until he has paid his dues whichever is later is appropriate.

A.c.no. 7494, june 27, 2008 Wilson cham vs. Atty. Eva paita-moya

Facts: this is a case charged against the respondent due to the failure of the latter is settling her rental dues against the defendant for the contract of lease she had entered on the realty and development corp. Represented by the co mplainant as president.the alleged default in rental payments was done in a deceitful manner as the respondent surreptitiously abandoned the rented apartment bringing along the door key and leaving an unpaid electric bills.this prompted the leasor to send demand to the leasee for the  pament of said rentals.the respondent argued,that,she did not vacated the place surreptitiously but instead give way to the owner¶s demand of vacating for the renovation of the building.she further reasoned out that she was able to pay his rental dues and even allowed to extend its rentals even in the expiration of their contract.

Issue: is the act of the respondent,a violation of her code of professionla responsibility?

Ruling:yes,the court finds the conduct of the respondent violative of the code of   professional responsibility,it also emphasized the moral duty and legal responsibility of  the respondent to settle just debts when due. the court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and hereby suspending her from practicing law for one month.

A.c.no.6792, jan. 25, 2006 Roberto soriano vs. Atty. Manuel dizon

Facts:this is a case of disbarment filed against the accused du e to his conviction of  frustrated homicide.the case stemmed from a traffic altercation by the responde nt with the complainant. In the co urse of their trouble,respondent was able to hit the neck o f the

complainant by his revolver making the complainant physically paralyzed.the manner  which the respondent attacked the complainant and a credible corroboration of witnesses as to the crime lead the conviction of the respondent of the said cr ime but later the rtc suspended the sentence by granting the respondent a probation.respondent banking his defense on a concocted story and alibi which later disregarded by the court due to existence of credible documentary and testimonial evidence.

Issue: whether his crime of frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude? Whether his conviction warrants disbarment?

Ruling: the court resolved the matter by declaring the actuation of the responde nt in the crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude.the court a lso consider the rtc¶s findings of treachery as a further indications of skewed morals of respondent.it is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed canon 1 o f the code of professional responsibility thru his possession of an unlicensed fire arm and his unjust refusal to satisfy civil liabilities.the court remind him both the attorney¶s oath and code of   professional responsibility.the appalling vindictiveness and,treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to co ntinue as member of the  bar.thus the court,disbarred the respondent and odered the name of the latter be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

A.c.no.6408, august 31, 2004 Barrientos vs. Atty. Elerizzalibiran-meteoro

Facts: this is a case for disbarment on the grounds of deceit and non-payments of debts against atty. Meteoro.the case commenced when the latter engaged in availing credits with abbarientos of jewelries and as payments o n this the respondent issued checks which eventually declared no sufficient funds to satisfy its obligation.the respondent defended his stance that the said check were already replaced and that the true complainant executed an affidavit of desistance which manifest that they are no longer interested in  pursuing the case.

Ruling:the court found the respondent with a manifestation of lawyers low regards to her  commitment to lawyer¶s oath.the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for  having been drawn against c losed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her.she must conduct herself in a manner that reflect the values and norms of legal profession as embodied in the code of professional responsibilty.the

court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended the latter for 6 months in practicing law.

A.c.no.4762, june 28, 2004 Linda vda. De espino vs. Atty. Pepito prequito

Facts:complainant¶s husband has entered an agreement with the respondent in the sale of  his lot for installment basis.respondent issued 8 checks to satisfy its obligation.however,it was dishonored and the said lot until the case is filed is still unpaid..this prompted the wife of espino to file a complaint against the respondent before the ibp-cbd.the respondent made a defense of deferring his payments due to the road-right of way which they agreed upon with mr. Espino.the absence of road right of way would placed him in a disadvantageous position due to the cost of doing so.

Issue: is the act of respondent a violation of canons of professional ethics as well as code of professional responsibility?

Ruling: yes,the court found the evidence of the complainant more weight and substance than the self-serving testimony of the complainant.his acts o f was wanting of in fairness,candor, and honesty demanded of him by lawyers¶code of professional responsibility and the canons of professional ethics.it should be stressed that respondent issued 8 worthless checks ,seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order.thus the court,found h im guilty of gross misconduct and ordered to be suspended from practicing law for a period of 1 year and an immediate account of  the complainant for the sale of the lot.

A.c.no. 5161, april 14, 2004 Isdra ting-dumali vs. Atty. Rolando s. Torres

Facts: the complainant was among the he irs julita and vicente ting.the respondent was the  brother in law of the complainant.the case stemmed from the execution of the deed of  extra judicial settlement and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpo se of profiting from such forgery.the wife of the respondent as well as another sister executed an affidavit stating that they are the only heirs of the ting spouses and falsify the signature of 

the complainant.the defense of the respondent was anchored on a clear oversight of not inclusion the name of the complainant as heirs.

Issue: whether the act of the respondent vioalative of his oath of profession as well as the canons of professional ethics.

Ruling;the court resolved the issue as violations of the lawyer¶s oath and the code of   professional responsibility.respondents acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring the intolerable dishonor to the legal profession.the found the respondent guilty of the provision of the lawyer¶s oath and code of professional responsibility thereby rendering the latter unworthy to remain member of the legal profession.he is thus ordered isbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the roll of  attorneys.

Nerlou r. Magsigay- legal ethics executive Atty. Romeo reyes-professor