40. [ A.C. NO. 6160. MARCH 30, 2006 ] NESTOR PEREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.

DANILO DE LA TORRE, RESPONDENT

FACTS:
1. This case was a complaint filed by Nestor Perez charging respondent Atty. Danilo de la
Torre for the misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing
conflicting interests.
COMPLAINT CHARGE
2. Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain in Camarines Sur and that several
suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego
Avila, were apprehended and dialed by the police authorities.
3. That, respondent that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared
extrajudicial confessions,
4. That, unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the
murder victim
5. That on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them,
including Perez, complainant who was implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as
the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
DEFENSE
6. Respondent denied the accusations against him.
7. He explained that while being detained at the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail. Avila
sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his involvement
in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom, murder and robbery.
8. That, he advised Avila to inform his parents about his decision to make an extrajudicial
confession, apprised him of his constitutional rights and of the possibility that he might
be utilized as a state-witness.
9. He also claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial
confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents, and only after he was
convinced that Ilo was not under undue compulsion.
10. The Complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
11. The recommendation was for his suspension was 1 year from the practice of the legal
profession.
12. The IBP Governors modified it to 2 yrs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. De la Torre violated the CPR for representing both parties.
HELD:
YES, Atty. De La Torre violated the CPR for representing both parties.
 There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used.
There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of
public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all
the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case.
The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
Investigating Commissioner’s opinion that in administrative proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his
complaint. The complainant was able to prove by substantial evidence his charge against
Atty. de la Tor[r]e. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by
both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the time that Atty. de la Torre was
representing the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the victim’s
family.
This was declared by the victim’s daughter, Vicky de Chavez, who testified that her
family retained the services of Atty. Danilo de la Torre to prosecute the case against her
father’s killers. She even admitted that she was present when Atty. de la Torre met with and
advised Avila and Ilo on one occasion.
To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his legal services
to accused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who sought his assistance in executing
their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as counsel
after apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being convinced that the accused
were under no compulsion to give their confession.
The excuse proferred by the respondent does not exonerate him from the clear
violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer
from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.
What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of
their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal
offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.
Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his
better judgment before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It did not cross his mind to
inhibit himself from acting as their counsel and instead, he even assisted them in executing
the extrajudicial confession. SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
41. Castro v. Galing (A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011)
FACTS:
1. In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Rodolfo Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City
Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa).
2. After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to
Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks. Respondent advised complainant to
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her
complaint.
3. Complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
4. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation that was filed for the
respondent on behalf of the opposing party.
5. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
6. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was
made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a
professional engagement as professed by complainant.
7. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was
allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of
another lawyer.
8. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty.
Manuel A.
9. Respondent pointed out that the complaint filed by complainant against Ms. Koa for estafa and
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on the demand letter
prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Año.
10. Respondent contended that he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal cases. He
further contended that complainant Justo and Ms. Koa are likewise long time friends, as in fact,
they are "comares" for more than 30 years since complainant is the godmother of Ms. Torralba.
11. Respondent claimed that it is in this light that he accommodated Ms. Koa and her daughter’s
request that they be represented by him in the cases filed against them by complainant and
complainant’s daughter.
12. He maintained that the filing of the Motion for Consolidation which is a non-adversarial pleading
does not evidence the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between him and Ms. Koa and
Ms. Torralba. Likewise, his appearance in the joint proceedings should only be construed as an
effort on his part to assume the role of a moderator or arbiter of the parties.
13. He insisted that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the parties achieve an
out of court settlement and possible reconciliation. He reported that his efforts proved fruitful
insofar as he had caused Ms. Koa to pay complainant the amount of ₱50,000.00 in settlement of
one of the two checks subject of I.S. No. 03G-19484-86.

14. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Galing
seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of
Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.
 15. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved with modification the findings of its
Investigating Commissioner.. It was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law
for one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent
guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced
malignancy of his act.
Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties
with conflicting interests in a controversy.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste.
A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between
complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the
demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship.
The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that
respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases
is of no moment.
Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability.
Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the
prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the
moment the attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the duration of the
professional relationship. We held in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta12 that it is not necessary that any
retainer be paid, promised or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.
In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with
the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration
of justice.
The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually
engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a client’s cause of action by another
lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only
malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client
relationship. Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the
complaint is deemed to be too severe.
As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, respondent is suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.

42. AC No. 6422 Garcia v. Lopez

Wilfredo T. Garcia, Complainant, v. Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez, Respondent | Adm. Case
No. 6422 | 28 August 2007
Facts:
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-
M-96 which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15.
Sarmiento sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract
of land. This was granted by the court.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision was
upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order dated 21
February 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of
registration and certificate of title.
The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file an urgent motion to cite the
LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. Hearings were scheduled.
On 19 September 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento,
filed his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.
Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn
from the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting
to the court that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to
mention that complainant was the counsel of record. According to him, his attorney's fee was
arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his
appearance at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount to unfair harvesting of
the fruit of complainant's labors since 1996.
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia
(Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson,
Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her
relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarvia and
Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of respondent
and that they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.
In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson
Ku who sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his
services. They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the
next day. Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to immediately file an entry of
appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest mistake
not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not
prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the
court.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and
recommendation dated 8 January 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and
violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to
specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. He
recommended that respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a
repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted
and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its resolution passed on 27 February 2004.
Issue:
Was the respondent violated the Canons 8 and 10, and Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the
attorney-client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as
counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of
postponement in behalf of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth
he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty
of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to
represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering
his appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to
complainant who had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and
who had not been discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of
complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be considered as
collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about whom he was
representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions of
complainant as the counsel of record.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the
causes of their clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities. Membership in the bar imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to
uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly
towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.
The court ordered the respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month
for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will
be dealt with more severely.

43.PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA

[A.C. No. 6655]
The Case: seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly
falsifying a public document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use
of falsified documents.
FACTS:
● Respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the
Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed was for a consideration
of ₱250,000 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope’s surviving
 spouse, Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and
Marivinia Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed
was for a consideration of ₱1,000,000 and appears to have been executed by and
for the benefit of the same parties as the first deed. The two deeds have identical
registration numbers, page numbers and book numbers in the notarial portion.
● Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs’ signatures
were falsified. She contends that her sister Marivinia does not know how to sign
her name and was confined at the Cagayan Valley Medical Center, Tuguegarao
City
● Complainant further alleges that the two deeds were not presented to any of them
and they came to know of their existence only recently
● She further claims that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) in her name and in
the names of her mother and her sister Marivinia were procured only by the vendee
Shirley and not by them
● complainant alleges that the two deeds were used by respondent and Shirley to
annul a previously simulated deed of sale dated June 20, 1979
● Respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two disputed Deeds of Extra-
Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale, but denies any irregularity in their
execution.
● Respondent adds that Shirley thereafter asked him what steps were needed to
effect registration of the deed and transfer of the title in her and her husband’s
name. He replied that all the unpaid land taxes should be paid including the
capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and estate tax to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) which will then issue the necessary clearance for registration.
When asked how much taxes are payable, he replied that it depends on the
assessment of the BIR examiner which will be based on the zonal value or selling
price stated in the deed of sale.
● Shirley then told the vendors that they should shoulder the payment of taxes.
Caridad and her co-vendors, however, refused and said that a big portion of the
₱1,000,000 paid to them was already used by them to pay and settle their other
obligations. Shirley then offered to pay one-half of whatever amount the BIR will
assess, but Caridad insisted that another document be prepared stating a reduced
selling price of only ₱250,000 so that they need not contribute to the payment of
taxes since Shirley was anyway already willing to pay one-half of the taxes based on
the selling price stated in the first deed.
● Later, the parties visited respondent at his house and pleaded with him to prepare
the second deed with the reduced selling price. Moved by his humane and
compassionate disposition, respondent gave in to the parties’ plea
● respondent prepared and notarized the second deed providing for the lower
consideration and he used the same document number, page number and book
number in the notarial portion as the first deed because according to him, the
second deed was intended by the parties to supplant the first.
● By Resolution, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation
 ● Commissioner found respondent administratively liable on account of his
indispensable participation in an act designed to defraud the government.
● the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved Commissioner’s report and
recommendation but imposed a higher penalty on respondent
ISSUE: WON Atty. Pascua’s acts were in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rules on Notarial Practice.
HELD:
● By respondent’s own account of the circumstances surrounding the execution and
notarization of the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis for disciplining him
as a member of the bar and as notary public.
● With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not
state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and
other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for
making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose.
As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid
for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right
to collect the correct taxes due. His act clearly violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:
● CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
● 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.
● Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance
of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent
document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not
deserve considering its nature and purpose.
● Moreover, while respondent’s duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain
the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration, it is
nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. Rule IV,
Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from
performing any notarial act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale
● In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite
knowledge of its illegal purpose. His purported desire to accommodate the
request of his client will not absolve respondent who, as a member of the legal
profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to the importunings
of his clients. Respondent should have been more prudent and remained steadfast in
his solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.
● Respondent also failed to comply with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice when he gave the second document the same document
number, page number and book number as the first. He therefore knowingly
violated the above rule, in furtherance of his client’s intention of concealing the actual
purchase price so as to avoid paying the taxes rightly due to the Government.
 ● WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition, his present notarial
commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED
that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

44. EN BANC
A.C. No. 6788 August 23, 2007
(Formerly, CBD 382)
DIANA RAMOS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal
actions against the spouses Jovellanos and gave respondent ₱8,500 as attorney's fees but the
latter issued a receipt for ₱5,000 only. The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings
of her cases. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to
wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been
cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each "appearance" in court,
respondent charged her ₱350.
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally
inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts and was shocked to learn that
respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanos and that he was in fact employed in the
PAO.
In respondents’ defense, the complainant knew that he was in the government service from the
very start as they have met when he was as assigned PAO counsel for the complainant’s
daughter. In 1992, complainant requested him to help her file an action for damages but since
he knew that complainant was not an indigent, he advised to consult a private Lawyer, Atty.
Ungson. However, the latter did not accept the complainant’s case as she was unable to come
up with the acceptance fee agreed upon. Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson’s refusal, complainant
insist in suing the Jovellanos.
Respondent also contended that the receipts were only issued to accommodate complainant’s
request since she was a friend. When respondent resigned from the PAO, the complainant ask
respondent to assist the former in filing her complaint. Since respondent is now a private
practitioner, he agreed. However, he was unable to finalized it as he lost contact with
complainant.
Acting on the complaint, the CBD rejected respondent's claim that he issued the receipt to
accommodate a friend's request as respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. It found respondent
guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and
receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries, and several provisions of Code of Professional
Responsibility (Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01). Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension
from the practice of law for 3 year and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant the
amount of ₱5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the CBD with modification
with regard to the restitution of ₱5,000 by imposing interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995 or, in
case of respondent's failure to return the total amount, an additional suspension of 6 months.
ISSUE: WON respondent lawyer violated the CPR?
RULING: YES.
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited.
Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Respondent
clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession. Aggravating respondent's
wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as
this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent violated the prohibition against
accepting legal fees other than his salary.
Canon 1. — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for the law and legal processes.
Respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of profession
disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel.
Respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint
against the Jovellanos (which in the first place he should not have done), respondent also led the
complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the Jovellanos. He even made it
appear that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his "appearance fees"
for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's
oath not to do any falsehood.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required of all lawyers,
specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from
any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government
but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and
fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of
social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice.
There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the money for the benefit of the
complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. Nevertheless, respondent should return the
₱5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept
them.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01
and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He
is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of ₱5,000 with interest at the legal rate, reckoned
from 1995, within 10 days from receipt of this resolution.
45. SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 6903 April 16, 2012
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty.
Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages
allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. A Special Retainer Agreement was entered
into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of
PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per
pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare for the other
expenses.
In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of
PhP78,500.00
January 8, 2005 PhP30,000.00 Acceptance fee
January 15, 2005 PhP11,000.00 Filing fee
February 3, 2005 PhP5,000.00 Filing fee
May 4, 2005 PhP2,500.00 Filing fee
June 8, 2005 PhP30,000.00 Filing fee
For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the
status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were
already filed before the RTC Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. Sometime in
July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her case from the
Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case of Tuparan had been filed
on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.
Hence, Suzette called for a conference where she demanded the refund of the total
amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of
PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of
Tuparan’s case, to which she agreed. On the same occasion, Atty. Capistrano handed to
her copies of her unfiled petition, Tuparan’s petition and his Withdrawal of Appearance
in Tuparan’s case with instructions to file them in court, as well as a list containing the
expenses he incurred and the schedule of payment of the amount of PhP63,000.00
However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 and thereafter,
refused to communicate with her, prompting the institution of this administrative
complaint.
In his Comment/Answer, Atty. Capistrano acknowledged receipt of the amount of
PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and his undertaking to return the agreed sum of PhP63,000.00.
He also admitted responsibility for his failure to file Suzette’s petition and cited as
justification his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal Officer of Manila
and lack of available funds to immediately refund the money received.
The IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano had
neglected his client’s interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case
and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that
his inability to refund the amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Hence, he was held guilty of violating Rule
18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the penalty of suspension for two years from the practice of law.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of
Commissioner Quisumbing with modification ordering the return of the sum of
PhP140,000.00 attorney’s fees to Suzette.
However, upon Atty. Capistrano’s timely motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution reducing the penalty of suspension from two years to
one year.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
Yes.
Indisputably, Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of
the bar. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review,12 he himself admitted liability for his
failure to act on Suzette’s case as well as to account and return the funds she
entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of
intention to breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is his first offense; and that his
profession is the only means of his and his family’s livelihood. He also prayed that the
adjudged amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of
PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00. Consequently,
Commissioner Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD Board of Governors correctly recommended the
appropriate penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law for violating the pertinent
provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, thus:

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF

HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
RULE 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust
reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to
the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling
one’s case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can
efficiently handle.
Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his
possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart
from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing
and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand.
Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the
trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross
violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession.
With the foregoing disquisition and Atty. Capistrano’s admission of his fault and negligence,
the Court finds the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP-CBD, sufficient sanction for his violation. However, the Court finds
proper to modify the amount to be returned to Suzette from PhP140,000.00 to PhP73,500.00.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of
PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof
of such payment.

46. [ A.C. NO. 6971. FEBRUARY 23, 2006 ] QUIRINO TOMLIN

II, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II,
RESPONDENT.
Facts:
Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint1 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II for allegedly reneging on his
monetary obligations and for having issued bouncing checks; thereby violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility2 and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22.
Respondent borrowed P600,000.00 from the complainant wherein the respondent issued
seven postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their
respective due dates, the checks where all dishonored by the drawee bank because of
RTCOCI and/or account closed.
Complainant made several demands, the last being a formal letter, however, respondent
still failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. Consequently,
complainant instituted a case for seven counts of violation of BP 22 and disbarment
against the respondent.
The respondent was directed to file his answer but instead he filed several motions for
extension of time to file a responsive pleading and a motion to dismiss complaint.
Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule
on non-forum shopping. Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case
despite the pendency of the criminal case is a form of harassment which should not be
allowed.
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) denied the motion to dismiss for being a prohibited
pleading under Section 2, Rule 3 of its Rules of Procedure. Respondent’s motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied.
All the motions of the respondent were denied by the CBD. The CBD requires the parties to
submit their respective verified positions papers however, only the complainant submitted
it. The respondent failed to file an answer and/or position paper despite several requests for
extension, in disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it was observed that the pending
criminal action against respondent does not pose a prejudicial question to the
resolution of the issues in the present administrative case. Hence, it was recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of the Investigating
Commissioners, but modified the penalty of suspension to two years.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Atty. Moya violated the CPR for failure to pay his monetary obligation
and issuing a bouncing checks.
2. Whether or not the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule on non-
forum shopping.
Ruling:
1. 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
people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers 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. Any 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.

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. Respondent 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 obligations.

2. No.
The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum shopping with the filing
of this administrative complaint is bereft of merit. 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 another or 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. Forum shopping applies only to judicial
cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings. Moreover, Criminal Case
Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondent’s 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.

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. 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.
Finally, we note that respondent failed to file his answer and verified position paper despite
several opportunities given him by the IBP, that is, from the time he received on December
20, 20032the Orderof the IBP requiring him to file an answer until March 31, 2005 when the
Investigating Commissioner submitted the Report and Recommendation. Instead, he filed
several motions for extension of time, motion to dismiss the complaint, motion for
reconsideration, manifestation with motion to terminate proceedings, and omnibus motion to
recall the default order. Until the end, respondent offered no plausible explanation for his
failure to pay his debts. Instead, he kept on insisting, on plainly unmeritorious grounds, the
dismissal of the complaint. Verily, respondent’s failure to comply with the orders of the IBP
without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. Respondent should
be reminded that the IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his membership
therein.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for two (2) years, effective immediately, with a warning that any further
infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.

47. A.C. No. 7055 July 31, 2006

NORIEL MICHAEL J. RAMIENTAS, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. JOCELYN P. REYALA, respondent.
FACTS:
The present controversy stemmed from an Administrative Complaint filed by Noriel
Michael J. Ramientas on 16 February 2004 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Commission on Bar Discipline, seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala.
The complaint was anchored on respondent Reyala's alleged violative acts: (1) submitting a
pleading before the Court of Appeals bearing the forged signature of another lawyer; and
(2) her continuous handling of a case while working in the Court of Appeals; both
contrary to a) Articles 171, 182, 184 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); b) the Code
of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers; and c) conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the recommendation of Atty. Edmund T.
Espina, Investigating Commissioner, finding respondent Reyala guilty of the
abovementioned violative acts and modified the penalty imposed from 6 months
suspension to 2 years.
On 13 February 2006, the Office of the Bar Confidant, SC, received a letter dated 30 January
2006, from Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Director for Bar Discipline of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, addressed to SC Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, stating therein that:
We are transmitting herewith the following documents pertaining to the above case
pursuant to Rule 139-B:
1. Notice of the Resolution;
2. Records of the case consisting of Volume I 1-185 pages.
In the interregnum, however, respondent Reyala submitted to the IBP an Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration of the resolution suspending her.
On 7 March 2006, the SC En Banc, acting on the letter and transmittal, resolved to require
complainant Ramientas and respondent Reyala to manifest whether they are willing to submit
the case for decision/resolution based on the pleadings and documents already on record.
Both parties submitted their compliance thereto.
In his Manifestation, complainant Ramientas acceded to the submission of the case for
decision/resolution based on the pleadings already on record.
Respondent Reyala, on the other hand, demurred to such submission for the meantime
considering that the Motion for Reconsideration she earlier filed before the IBP
remained unresolved to date. Further, she stated that when she scheduled said motion for
hearing, she was informed by the IBP that it was precluded from acting on the aforesaid
motion as it had already transmitted to this Court the whole records of the particular case
together with Resolution No. XVII-2005-171, which recommended that she be suspended
from the practice of law for two (2) years. Thus, she prayed that her motion for
reconsideration be decided first by the IBP Board of Governors before submitting the case
for decision/resolution to this Court.
ISSUE:
WON the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Reyala on the decision of the IBP is proper?
RULING:
Yes.
Prefatorily, a reading of the By-Laws of the IBP will reveal that a motion for reconsideration
of its resolution or order is a prohibited pleading. § 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP provides that:
SEC. 2. Prohibited Pleadings. The following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:
xxxx
c. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of resolution or order.
xxxx
Parenthetically, at first glance, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the rules governing the
disbarment and discipline of attorneys, shows that there is no provision regarding motions
for reconsideration of resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors suspending
respondent lawyers. However, worth noting is the fact that neither does it particularly
proscribe the filing of such motions. §12 (b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court reads:
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – x x x
 xxxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the
whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
action. (Emphasis supplied.)
xxxx
Hence, this impasse.
In the Halimao case, we took the occasion to articulate our stance respecting motions for
reconsideration of resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors in disciplinary cases against
lawyers. This Court was confronted therein with somewhat the same set of circumstance as
the case at bar in that after the IBP Board of Governors transmitted to us its resolution
adopting the recommendation of the investigating commissioner dismissing the disbarment
complaint against respondent Villanueva for being barred by res judicata, complainant
Halimao filed a motion for reconsideration. The latter opposed such motion on the ground that
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court does not provide for such a possibility of review. In resolving
the issue, this Court, through Mr. Justice Mendoza, held that:
Although Rule 139-B, §12 (c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration,
nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may
therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such
motion should be encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering the
judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed through a
misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the evidence.16 (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the aforequoted ruling amended the IBP By-Laws in that it effectively removed a
motion for reconsideration from the roster of proscribed pleadings in the level of the
IBP. It must be remembered that it is well within the Court's power to amend the By-Laws
of the IBP – § 77 of the same vests in this Court the power to amend, modify or repeal it,
either motu proprio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
Certainly, prudence dictates that the IBP be given the opportunity to correct its mistakes, if
any, by way of motions for reconsideration before this Court takes cognizance of the case.
This is to further insure that the grievance procedure will be allowed to duly run its
course – a form of filtering process, particularly respecting matters within the competence of
the IBP, before we step in.
In fine, though such remand will hold back the advancement of the case, nevertheless, it
bears emphasizing that it is equally important that the IBP be afforded the opportunity to set
things as it should be. Observance of this basic principle is a sound practice and policy and
should never be compromised at the altar of expediency.
In concurrence with the above, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved,
that in accordance with our ruling in Halimao v. Villanueva, pertinent provisions of Rule III of
the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, as contained in the By-Laws of
the IBP, particularly § 1 and § 2, are hereby deemed amended. Accordingly, § 1 of said rules
now reads as follows:
SECTION. 1. Pleadings. – The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified
answer, verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a resolution.
[Emphasis supplied.]
And in § 2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the purview of the class of
prohibited pleadings.
Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of disciplinary cases
against lawyers:
1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration
of the IBP resolution containing its findings and recommendations within fifteen (15) days
from notice of receipt by the parties thereon;
2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP
must first resolve the same prior to elevating to this Court the subject resolution together
with the whole record of the case;
3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP
is directed to forthwith transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together
with the whole record of the case;
4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a petition for review
before this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed;
and
5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist pending motions
for reconsideration filed in due time before the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from
this Court the subject resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within
30 days from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable dispatch.
Consistent with the discussions hereinabove set forth, let the whole record of this case be
immediately remanded to the IBP for the proper disposition of respondent Atty. Jocelyn
P. Reyala's motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
48. JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA,
respondent.
A.C. No. 7136/ August 1, 2007
Facts:
• January 2000: Joselano Guevarra (complainant) met Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala 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.
• October 7, 2000: After his marriage, 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."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early
in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work.
When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents'
house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
• 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.
• April 22, 2001: complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at which
he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that
incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings,
pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.
• 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 and soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene
constantly parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn
sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that
when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent
during a concert, she was pregnant.
• March 4, 2002: Complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the IBP and CBD
against the respondent for “grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of
the lawyer's oath”
• Paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT: Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING
THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together.
• Respondent, in his ANSWER: denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship; the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and
known only to the immediate members of their respective families,
• Paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT: Respondent's adulterous conduct with the
complainant's wife and his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family,
demonstrate his gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his
membership in the bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage,
calling it a "piece of paper."
 • Respondent stated in his ANSWER: the reason being that Respondent's relationship
with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that as far as his
relationship with his own family. He has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful
relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally meet in public,
even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship with Irene.
• Paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT: he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed
his own family, broke up the complainant's marriage, commits adultery with his
wife, and degrades the legal profession.
• Respondent, in his ANSWER: He denies the allegations, the reason being that under
the circumstances the acts of Respondent with respect to his purely personal and low
profile special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.
Issue: Whether or not Concubinage or Adulterous relationship may be the reason for the
disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala?
Ratio Decidendi: YES.
IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner:
The Commissioner thus recommended19 that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reading: A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Underscoring supplied), and Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the same Code reading: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Underscoring supplied)
IBP Board of Governors: However, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit.
Supreme Court: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06
passed on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is
DISBARRED for 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.
• These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is indeed
a "special" relationship between him and complainant's wife, Irene, [which] taken
together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex "H-1")
sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship between respondent
and Irene which resulted in the birth of the child "Samantha". In the Certificate of Live
Birth of Samantha it should be noted that complainant's wife Irene supplied the
information that respondent was the father of the child. Given the fact that the
respondent admitted his special relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe
that Irene would lie or make any misrepresentation regarding the paternity of the child.
It should be underscored that respondent has not categorically denied that he is the
father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.25 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
• Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Luke's Medical Center, in his January
29, 2003 Affidavit30 which he identified at the witness stand, declared that Irene gave
the information in the Certificate of Live Birth that the child's father is "Jose
 Emmanuel Masacaet Eala," who was 38 years old and a lawyer. Without doubt, the
adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven by
more than clearly preponderant evidence – that evidence adduced by one party which
is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater
weight than the other32 – which is the quantum of evidence needed in an
administrative case against a lawyer.
• This becomes all the more apparent by Moje's subsequent relocation in No. 71-B, 11th
Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks away from the church where
she had exchange marital vows with complainant. It was in this place that the two
lovers apparently cohabited. Especially since Eala's vehicle and that of Moje's were
always seen there.
• "Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit
of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the
surrounding circumstances." The case at bar involves a relationship between a
married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether
the affair was carried out discreetly. Sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws. (Vitug v. Rongcal)
• Tucay v. Atty. Tucay: that indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair
with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely
low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior
renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges
which his license confers upon him.
• Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
• That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared
void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the marriage
was declared null and void.43 As 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.44 In 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.
49. AC 7136 Joselano Guevarra v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment1
against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
Guevarra was married to Irene, complainant alleged that his wife has 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."
Complainant even found a love letter dated on the same date of their wedding:
“…I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M LIVING MY
TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"
Eternally yours, - NOLI (Friends - Season 10, Episode 4 Reference LOL)

Complainant Respondent
Alleged that Respondent and Irene • Denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
were FLAUNTING THEIR relationship with Irene,
ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP. • That that their relationship was low profile
and known only to the immediate
members of their respective families,
• and that Respondent, as far as the
general public was concerned, was still
known to be legally married to Mary Anne
Tantoco.
(Low-key lang daw)
Respondent's actions, demonstrates • Respondent's relationship with Irene was
his gross moral depravity, not under scandalous circumstances.
He flaunted his aversion to the • Respondent’s wife was aware of the
institution of marriage, calling it a "piece respondent’s special friendship with Irene.
of paper."
Morally reprehensible was his writing
the love letter to complainant's bride on
the very day of her wedding, vowing to
continue his love for her "until we are
together again," as now they are.

IBP Investigating commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred.

IBP Board of Governors annulled and set aside the said recommendation for lack of merit.
SC: Granted the petition, annulled and set aside IBP Board of Governors’ resolution.
Fallo: Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for 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.
Rationale:

Respondent contends SC: Respondent’s denial was a negative pregnant.

t h a t t h e r e i s n o • Respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is
evidence against him. indeed a "special" relationship between him and
complainant's wife, Irene, [which] taken together with the
Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje
sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit
relationship between respondent and Irene which resulted
in the birth of the child "Samantha".
• Respondent does not deny carrying on an adulterous
relationship with Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art.
333 of the Revised Penal Code.
• What respondent denies is having flaunted such
relationship, he maintaining that it was "low profile and
known only to the immediate members of their respective
families."
Respondent insists, Respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath by his disregard on
however, that the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows.
disbarment does not lie
because his
relationship with Irene “…indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with
was not, under Section a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of
27 of Rule 138 of the an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
Revised Rules of Court profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably
unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges
which his license confers upon him
– Tucay v. Atty. Tucay

50. FERNANDO MARTIN PENA vs. ATTY LOLITO G. APARICIO

A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007
In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is charged with violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of
which threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and
falsification of documents.
FACTS
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal
case before the NLRC against complainant Fernando Martin O. Pena , as President of
MOF Company, Inc. (Subic). Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay arising from her
alleged illegal dismissal, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless. Pena thereafter sent
notices to Hufana for the latter to explain her absences and to return to work. In reply to this
return to work notice, Atty. Aparicio wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his client's
claim for separation pay. Through his demand letter the contents of which threatened
complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he
would file and claim for bigger amounts including:
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government.
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.
Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards,
complainant filed an administrative complaint with the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader
(Motion to Dismiss and Counterclaims) claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson,
complainant's legal counsel, also played an important part in imputing the malicious,
defamatory, and fabricated charges against him. Respondent also pointed out that the
complaint had no certification against forum shopping and was motivated only to
confuse the issues then pending before the Labor Arbiter. By way of counterclaim,
respondent asked for damages and for the disbarment of Atty. Jocson. Respondent also
asked the IBP to endorse the prosecution of Atty. Jocson for Usurpation of Public Functions
and for violation of the Notarial Law.
The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against complainant
his failure to attach the certification against forum shopping to his complaint and
consequently dismissed his complaint.
ISSUE
1. WON Atty. Aparicio violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law?
2. WON it is proper to disbar Atty. Aparicio?
HELD
1. YES. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law," reminding legal
practitioners that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought
to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule
19.01 commands that a "lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
 threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file
any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe.
Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the
amounts they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts
including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion,
falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due
to violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but
they also amount to blackmail.

2. NO. The SC rule that, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards,
we hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent,
considering that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his
client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio is hereby found liable for violation
of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is
accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.