Zamora v. Gallanosa, A.C. No. 10738, 14 September 2020 Zuzuarregui v. Zuzuarregui, B.M. No.

2796, 11 February
Complainant: Marcelina Zamora 2020
Respondent: Atty. Marilyn V. Gallanosa Complainant: Enrique Javier De Zuzuarregui
Facts: Respondent: Anthony De Zuzuarregui
 Marcelina Zamora lodged a formal complaint against Attorney Facts:
Marilyn V. Gallanosa for breaching the Code of Professional  Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui filed a bar matter against his
Responsibility (CPR). nephew, Anthony de Zuzuarregui, who wanted to take the
 The issue began when Gallanosa proposed to help Zamora 2013 Bar Examinations.
with her husband's wrongful termination case at the National  The complainant questioned the respondent's moral character
Labor Relations Commission. due to pending criminal charges.
 Gallanosa drafted a position paper on behalf of Zamora, which  The respondent disclosed the cases but was allowed to take
was submitted to Labor Arbiter Virginia T. Luyas-Azarraga. the exams with a condition.
 Gallanosa did not appear at a later hearing, resulting in the  After passing, he applied to take the Lawyer's Oath but was
case being decided in her absence. asked to explain a missing case and provide more character
 Upon discovering that Gallanosa failed to file an appeal as she certifications.
had committed to do, Zamora proceeded to file the complaint.  The Court referred his petition to the Office of the Bar
Ruling: Confidant for evaluation.
 The Supreme Court concurred with the Integrated Bar of the Ruling:
Philippines (IBP) in finding Gallanosa culpable of violating  The Court permitted Anthony de Zuzuarregui to take the
Rules 2.03, 8.02, and 18.03, as well as Canon 17 of the CPR. Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
 As a consequence, Gallanosa was suspended from the  Found him to have the moral qualifications required for
practice of law for a period of six months, effective lawyers.
immediately, with a caution that any recurrence would lead to  Noted that the uncle's complaints were meant to hinder
harsher penalties. Anthony from becoming a lawyer.
Ratio: Ratio:
 The Court highlighted that canvassing cases for personal  Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires good moral character
advantage breaches Canon 3 of the CPR. for bar admission.
 Rule 2.03 of the CPR forbids actions predominantly aimed at  The Court delayed Anthony's admission due to the cases, but
soliciting legal business. most were dismissed.
 The establishment of a lawyer-client relationship occurred  The recent case's timing was questionable, showing an intent
when Gallanosa advised Zamora on her legal alternatives to block Anthony's admission.
regarding the labor dispute.  Emphasized that Anthony met the bar admission
 Gallanosa’s omission to file an appeal was deemed a breach requirements, and the pending case was not a hindrance.
of the CPR, underscoring the necessity for lawyers to uphold
high ethical standards and integrity within the legal field.
  The Court also considered Lomeda's prior misconduct as a judge,
where he was found guilty of gross negligence and false testimony,
Philippine Investment One, Inc. v. Lomeda, A.C. No. 11351, further establishing his unfitness to practice law.
14 August 2019  Given the gravity of his infractions, the injury caused, and his
disrespect for legal processes, the Court found disbarment to be the
Complainant: Phil. Investment One (SPV-AMC) Rep. by Carlos
appropriate penalty.
Guadencio  This decision underscores the Court's commitment to maintaining
Respondent: Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Lomeda the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Facts: So v. Lee, B.M. No. 3288, 10 April 2019
 Administrative complaint filed against Atty. Aurelio Jesus V. Complainant: Mercuria D. So
Lomeda by Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. Respondent: Ma. Lucille P. Lee
 Allegation of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Facts:
Court and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional  Ma. Lucille P. Lee sought to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign
Responsibility the Roll of Attorneys despite facing civil cases.
 Falsification of Secretary's Certificate for a credit line  Mercuria D. So questioned Lee's fitness for admission to the Bar
 Respondent admitted to not being a corporate secretary of due to alleged irresponsibility with monetary obligations.
 Lee admitted to a P200,000.00 loan from So but had paid
Big "N" in a Judgment Based on Compromise issued by the
P140,000.00.
Regional Trial Court  Lee had civil cases filed against her by So and Joseph "Nonoy"
Ruling: Bolos.
 Respondent found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Ruling:
Responsibility (CPR)  Lee is allowed to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of
 Disbarred and name removed from the Roll of Attorneys Attorneys.
Ratio:  Lee must inform the Court within one month of her first payment to
 The Supreme Court emphasized that any misconduct or wrongdoing Joseph Bolos.
by a lawyer indicating unfitness for the profession justifies  Lee must notify the Court upon full satisfaction of her monetary
disciplinary action. obligation as per the Judgment by Compromise.
 The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) mandates lawyers to Ratio:
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for  The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege granted
legal processes. by the State to those who meet high standards of intellectual and
 Rule 1.01 specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, moral qualifications.
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.  Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires applicants to
 Lomeda violated these provisions by falsely representing himself as demonstrate good moral character and the absence of charges
the corporate secretary of Big "N" and executing a falsified involving moral turpitude.
Secretary's Certificate.  Moral turpitude is defined as acts of baselessness, vileness, or
 His actions facilitated a fraudulent mortgage, causing significant depravity contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
prejudice to both Big "N" and the complainant.  While certain criminal acts involve moral turpitude, not all do, and
 Lomeda's excuse that he was merely a victim of Palanca's ploy was the determination is a question of fact.
found unacceptable.  The Court noted that the pendency of civil cases alone should not
 Lomeda's repeated failure to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings prevent successful Bar examinees from taking their Lawyer's Oath
demonstrated a blatant disregard for the authority of the Court. and signing the Roll of Attorneys.
 Not all civil cases involve acts of moral turpitude.
  The dismissal of the civil cases against Lee through compromise  Previous cases where lawyers were disbarred for similar misconduct
agreements indicated no acts of moral turpitude. reinforced the need to maintain public confidence in the legal
 However, Lee must still demonstrate her commitment to settling profession.
her monetary obligations to Bolos, as failure to pay just debts  Despite Rojas' plea for leniency, the Court found he did not meet
constitutes gross misconduct. the guidelines for judicial clemency, which require proof of remorse
 The requirement of good moral character is ongoing for members of and reformation.
the legal profession.  The Court concluded that Rojas must be held accountable for his
 The Court's decision allows Lee to proceed with her admission to actions and face disbarment to protect the public and uphold the
the Bar, subject to conditions ensuring her compliance with the integrity of the legal profession.
compromise agreement.

Bartolome v. Atty. Rojas, A.C. No. 13226, 04 October, 2022

Complainant: Jocelyn G. Bartolome
Respondent: Atty. Remegio P. Rojas
Facts:
 Disbarment complaint against Atty. Remegio P. Rojas by Jocelyn
Guingab Bartolome.
 Allegations of fabricating a judicial decision and deceitful conduct in
an annulment case.
 Atty. Rojas promised to expedite the case for a fee and claimed to
have a relative who is a presiding judge.
 Bartolome sent documents and money to Atty. Rojas, who later
gave her a fake "final decision."
Ruling:
 Atty. Rojas is disbarred for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 Actions deemed as "unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct."
Ratio:
 Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, focusing
on whether the attorney remains fit to practice law.
 The primary objective is to protect public interest and preserve the
integrity of the legal profession.
 Rojas admitted his involvement in perpetuating "annulment
packages," although he disavowed authorship and claimed he was
also scammed.
 Regardless of his intentions, Rojas' actions tarnished the legal
profession and disrespected the judicial system.
 He violated his sworn oath to be honest and obey the law, creating
an impression that the judicial process can be manipulated.
 The Court referenced the Lawyer's Oath and duties under Rule 138,
noting Rojas failed to uphold these standards.