Legal Ethics (Case Digest) prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents.

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath
Tapucar vs Tapucar (A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998) and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to
Facts: Complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his
her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to
immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. Accordingly, we
scandalous circumstances. Prior to this complaint, respondent was already SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law for
administratively charged four times for conduct unbecoming an officer of the SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.
court. In Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980,
respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six Velez vs De Vera (A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006)
months suspension without pay, while in Administrative Matters Nos. 1720, Facts: This case involves Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor
1911 and 2300-CFI, which were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 and Executive Vice-President (EVP) Atty. Leonard de Vera. The first pertains to a
ordered the separation from the service of respondent. Now he faces disbarment case questioning Atty. de Veras moral fitness to remain as a
disbarment. Atty. Tapucar violated Rule 1.01 and 7.03, his family obligation, member of the Philippine Bar, the second refers to Atty. de Veras letter-request
morality and his lawyer’s oath. Respondent was disbarred. to schedule his oath taking as IBP National President, and the third case
Held: Well settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a concerns the validity of his removal as Governor and EVP of the IBP by the IBP
condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also Board. The resolution of these cases will determine the national presidency of
remain intact in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and the IBP for the term 2005-2007.
honored fraternity. There is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred An administrative case against Atty. de Vera was filed before the State Bar of
ministry in which a hightoned morality is more imperative than that of law. California, docketed then as Adm. Case No. 86-0-18429. It arose from an
For a judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of insurance case Atty. De Vera handled involving Julius Willis, III who figured in an
justice. Ordinary citizens consider him as a source of strength that fortifies their automobile accident in 1986. Atty. de Vera was authorized by the elder Willis
will to obey the law. Indeed, a judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the (father of Julius who was given authority by the son to control the case because
law in all of his actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. A lawyer the latter was then studying in San Diego California) for the release of the funds
is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal in settlement of the case. Atty. de Vera received a check in settlement of the
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts case which he then deposited to his personal account.
and to his clients.
In the present case, the record shows that despite previous Linsangan vs Tolentino (A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
sanctions imposed upon him by this Court, respondent continued his illicit Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
liaison with a woman other than his lawfully-wedded wife. The report of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
Commissioner assigned to investigate thoroughly the complaint found for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
respondent far from contrite; on the contrary, he exhibited a cavalier attitude, Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
even arrogance, in the face of charges against him. Keeping a mistress, entering Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims.
and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them
obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross text messages. To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to
respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondents
his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Respondent, in his defense,
profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action. calling card. The CBD, in its report and recommendation, found that respondent
had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02
Donton vs Tansingco (A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006) and other canons hence, recommending that respondent be reprimanded with
Facts: Peter T. Donton (complainant) filed a criminal complaint for estafa a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty. Respondent
thru falsification of a public document against Duane O. Stier (Stier), Emelyn A. lawyer was suspended for 1 year with stern warning in case of repetition.
Maggay (Maggay) and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Held: Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,
Occupancy Agreement. Complainant averred that respondent’s act of preparing either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Through Labianos actions, respondents
national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. IBP Commission on Bar representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could
Discipline found respondent liable for taking part in a "scheme to circumvent produce a more favorable result. Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly
the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR
Philippines." Commissioner San Juan recommended respondent’s suspension and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Respondent committed an
from the practice of law for two years and the cancellation of his commission as unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice. He cannot escape
Notary Public. IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
and recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only
months. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP. exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would already retire by expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic
2005 after the termination of his pending cases. He also said that his practice of notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is
law is his only means of support for his family and his six minor children. IBP handling for the client. The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s
denied the motion for reconsideration because the IBP had no more jurisdiction independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be
on the case as the matter had already been referred to the Court. adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is
Held: The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the
1.02 of the Code. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer
client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional
obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in stake in its outcome.
violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by
lawyer. petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.
disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by
respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
his act and transferred the title in complainant’s name. But respondent (a) lawyers name;
provided "some safeguards" by preparing several documents, including the (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual (c) address;
owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant’s name. In effect, (d) telephone number and
respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional (e) special branch of law practiced.
 strained family relation with respondent Jon de Ysasi II may be considered as
Vitriolo et al vs Dasig (A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003) justifiable reason for petitioner Jon de Ysasi III's absence from work during the
Facts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina period of October 1982 to December 1982. In any event, such absence does not
S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge warrant outright dismissal without notice and hearing.
involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as revealed by
having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the the records, sorely disappoints the Court and invites reproof. Both counsel may
dignity and reputation of the CHED. Complainants allege that respondent, while well be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients
she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for with zeal. goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Further, court. It is just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all
complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and
36 Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts owing to especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties
Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as evidenced by the between their clients. Once again, we reiterate that the useful function of a
dishonored checks she issued. The IBP CBD recommended her suspension for 3 lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by
years which was then adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. advising settlement or withholding suit.
Held: We find that respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly
such a character as to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a provides that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the
lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." On this point, we find that both
her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications counsel herein fell short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed
and requests awaiting action by her office. duties as officers of the court. The records do not show that they took pains to
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of initiate steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their clients.
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted exchanges could not but have
may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondents conduct in office exacerbated the situation even as they may have found favor in the equally
falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, hostile eyes of their respective clients.
specially from one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is
expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to Mecaral vs Velasquez (A.C. No. 8392, June 29, 2010)
lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also Facts: Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government Bar Discipline (CBD) with Gross Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct.
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his
responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice. Respondent lover and common-law wife. In October 2007, respondent brought her to the
Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a
violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as the Code of Professional religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, of
Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED. which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce
in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval,
Ysasi III vs. NLRC et al (G.R. No. 104599, March 11, 1994) Biliran. Respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction,
Facts: Petitioner was employed by his father, herein private respondent, as his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs.
farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental Having informed of complainant’s dire situation, her mother, Delia
sometime in April, 1980. Prior thereto, he was successively employed as sales Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia) sought help to rescue her. Hence, the present
manager of Triumph International (Phil.), Inc. and later as operations manager disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant charges
of Top Form Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. His employment as farm administrator respondent with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on
was on a fixed salary, with other allowances covering housing, food, light, August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma.
power, telephone, gasoline, medical and dental expenses. Shirley G. Yunzal.
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved to Bacolod Held: The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
City with his wife and commuted to work daily. He suffered various ailments state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
and was hospitalized on two separate occasions in June and August, 1982. In qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a
November, 1982, he underwent fistulectomy, or the surgical removal of the lawyers moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his
fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. During his recuperation which lasted over four cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely
months, he was under the care of Dr. Patricio Tan. In June, 1983, he was and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this
confined for acute gastroenteritis and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
December, 1983 to January, 1984. Respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private respondent Responsibility, he also violated the Lawyers Oath and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
took care of his medical expenses and petitioner continued to receive same Code.
compensation. However, in April, 1984, without due notice, private respondent In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and
ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner made oral and written demands for acts which constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the
an explanation for the sudden withholding of his salary from Atty. Apolonio qualifications of a lawyer. Respondent is disbarred and his name ordered
Sumbingco, private respondent's auditor and legal adviser, as well as for the stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
remittance of his salary. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.
Petitioner then filed an action with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Ventura vs Samson (A.C. No. 9608, NOVEMBER 27, 2012)
Branch No. VI, Bacolod City against private respondent for illegal dismissal with Facts: Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a
prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of full Complaint for Disbarment or Suspension before the Integrated Bar of the
back wages, thirteenth month pay for 1983, consequential, moral and Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against respondent Atty. Danilo
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. NLRC dismissed said complaint S. Samson for “grossly immoral conduct.”
but ordered respondent to pay petitioner the amount of P5,000.00 as penalty Complainant alleged that she was raped several times by respondent
for his failure to serve notice of said termination of employment to the when she was 13 years old and working their made. The criminal complaint for
Department of Labor and Employment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration rape was however dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor but finding probable
but was denied. cause for Qualified Seduction.
Held: The fundamental guarantees of security of tenure and due process Respondent averred that their act of having sex was done with
dictate that no worker shall be dismissed except for just and authorized cause mutual agreement after respondent gave money to complainant. He further
provided by law and after due process. state that having sex with complainant once with just compensation does not
Suffering from a disease by reason whereof the continued amount to immoral conduct. Respondent then explained that the filing of the
employment of the employee is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his and his Criminal Case against respondent as well as this Administrative Case is a well-
co-employee's health, is also a ground for termination of his services provided orchestrated and planned act of Corazon Ventura as vengeance against
he receives the prescribed separation pay. On the other hand, it is well-settled respondent as a result of her separation from the employment in the Law Office
that abandonment by an employee of his work authorizes the employer to of the respondent.
effect the former's dismissal from employment. Complainant and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor
After evaluating the evidence within the context of the special and executed their respective Affidavits of Desistance. Complainant stated that
circumstances involved and basic human experience, petitioner's illness and what happened between respondent and her in March 2002 was based on
mutual understanding. Thus, she was withdrawing the complaint she filed the trust and respect complainant reposed in him as a member of the Bar and
against respondent before the RTC as well as the one she filed before the IBP an officer of the court.
Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case against respondent In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether
was dismissed. the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the
IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of respondent for one year Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondents administrative
from the practice of law which the Board of Governors approved but modifying liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the
the suspension to be five years. parties may choose to file against each other.
Held: Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for two years.
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so Bansig vs Celera (A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014)
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible Facts: Complainant Rose Bunagan-Bansig (Bansig) filed a petition for
to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting disbarment against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera (respondent) for
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. Gross Immoral Conduct.
Respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter Complainant stated that respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan (Bunagan),
of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants entered into a contract of marriage however, notwithstanding respondent's
sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another marriage on January 8,
complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he 1998 with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba (Alba).
did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Respondent pointed out that having been the family's erstwhile
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife counsel and her younger sister's husband, Bansig knew his law office address,
manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own but she failed to send a copy of the complaint to him. Respondent suspected
marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a that Bansig was trying to mislead him in order to prevent him from defending
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low himself. He added that Bansig has an unpaid obligation amounting to
regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession. ₱2,000,000.00 to his wife which triggered a sibling rivalry. He further claimed
Complainant’s Affidavit of that he and his wife received death threats from unknown persons; thus, he
Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings transferred to at least two (2) new residences. He then prayed that he be
in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of furnished a copy of the complaint and be given time to file his answer to the
disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A case of suspension or complaint.
disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a Several Show Cause orders were issued against respondent for
civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its failure to comply with the Resolutions of the Court and eventually he was fined
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A and was ordered detain. The IBP-CBP recommended the respondent’s
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his suspension from the practice of law for two years.
conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Held: A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor
Bar. purely criminal, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its
Respondent is disbarred for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his officers. The issue to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to continue
oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Hence, an
Code of Professional Responsibility. administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a
complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this
Roa vs Moreano (A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010) case, the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite
Facts: This complaint, filed by Alfredo B. Roa (complainant) against Atty. numerous notices.
Juan R. Moreno (respondent), stemmed from a transaction involving the sale of Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
a parcel of land. Complainant asks that respondent be disciplined and ordered required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a
to return the amount of money paid for the sale. sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a
Sometime in September 1998, respondent sold to complainant a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
parcel of land located along Starlite Street in Cupang, Antipolo. Complainant immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of
paid respondent P70,000 in cash as full payment for the lot. Respondent did not the Revised Rules of Court.
issue a deed of sale. Instead, he issued a temporary receipt and a Certificate of Moreover, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the
Land Occupancy purportedly issued by the general overseer of the estate in lawful orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
which the lot was located. Respondent assured complainant that he could use Court is in itself alone a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.
the lot from then on. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme
Complainant learned, not long after, that the Certificate of Land Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s
Occupancy could not be registered in the Register of Deeds. When complainant conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held
went to see respondent, the latter admitted that the real owner of the lot was a that a Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should
certain Rubio. Respondent also said there was a pending legal controversy over it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Respondent’s
the lot. On 25 February 2001, complainant sent a letter to respondent obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a
demanding the return of the P70,000 paid for the lot. recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the
Respondent explained that what he sold to complainant was merely Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof."
the right over the use of the lot, not the lot itself. Respondent maintained he Respondent is disbarred and his name stricken of the Roll of
never met the complainant during the negotiations for the sale of said right. Attorneys for being guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience
Respondent claimed it was a certain Benjamin Hermida who received the of lawful orders.
purchase price. Respondent further alleged that it was one Edwin Tan, and not
the complainant, who paid the purchase price. Areola vs Mendoza (A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014)
Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent on which Facts: This refers to the administrative complaint1 filed by Edgardo D.
he was acquitted, hence this complaint. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza
Held: A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his (Atty. Mendoza), from the Public Attorney s Office (PAO) for violation of her
professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to attorney’s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the present case, respondent acted in his private capacity. He Complainant stated that when he helped his co-inmates in drafting
misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to complainant. He refused to their pleadings and filing motions Atty. Mendoza undermined his capability and
return the amount paid by complainant. As a final blow, he denied having any scolded his co-inmates. He further stated that respondent advised her clients
transaction with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he and their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and cry" so that
fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be
Responsibility. dismissed.
Respondents refusal to return to complainant the money paid for Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint
the lot is unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his against her is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also filed several
conduct, respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism administrative cases against judges in the courts of Antipolo City including the
required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents acts violated jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously detained. These
actuations show that Areola has a penchant for filing various charges against not for her annulment; that in the preparation of the affidavit for the University
anybody who does not accede to his demand. Atty. Mendoza contended that of Perpetual Help, he did not mention her intention to pursue an annulment
Areola is not a lawyer but represented himself to his co-detainees as one. She proceeding against her husband upon her request; and that no psychological
alleged that the motions/pleadings prepared and/or filed by Areola were not test was conducted because she refused to allocate time to accommodate the
proper. schedule of the clinical psychologist.
Held: The Court finds that the instant Complaint against Atty. Mendoza Held: Despite the engagement of his services, respondent did not file the
profoundly lacks evidence to support the allegations contained therein. All contracted petition. His conduct, as held in Vda. De Enriquez v. San Jose,
Areola has are empty assertions against Atty. Mendoza that she demanded amounted to inexcusable negligence. This was found to be contrary to the
money from his co-detainees. Complaint was not also the proper party for the mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
complaint. Responsibility, which enjoined a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted
With regard the advice she gave her client to approach the judge and to him.
plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted, respondent made In this case, respondent clearly received his acceptance fee, among
it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such others, and then completely neglected his client’s cause. Moreover, he failed to
as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed. This amounts to inform complainant of the true status of the petition. His act of receiving money
irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the complainant's case and,
the Code of Professional Responsibility. subsequently, failing to render the services, was a clear violation of Canon 18 of
Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the the Code of Professional Responsibility.
public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or The Court, however, deletes the aforementioned order stated in the
influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty. resolution of the IBP, to wit, "To return the amount of Eighty Thousand Nine
Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled for. Respondent was reprimanded. Hundred Pesos (₱80,900.00) to complainant within five (5) days from notice
with 12% interest per annum from the date this recommendation is affirmed by
De Leon vs. Pedreña (A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013) the Supreme Court." The Court has recently adopted the policy to let the
Facts: Jocelyn de Leon filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) complainant claim and collect the amount due from the respondent in an
a complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law against Atty. independent action, civil or criminal.
Tyrone Pedreña for sexually harassing her. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Complainant has already filed a criminal case against respondent for
acts of lasciviousness when respondent made sexual advances during the time Villatuya vs Tabalingcos (A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012)
when he was then her counsel. Respondent denied such allegation and filed a Facts: Complainant Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) charges Atty. Bede S.
case of theft against the complainant. Tabalingcos (respondent) with unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of the
The IBP-CBO recommended respondent’s disbarment but this was Code or Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees to complainant, and
modified by the Board of Governors to six months suspension. gross immorality for marrying two other women while respondent’s first
Held: The records show that Atty. Pedreña rubbed the complainant’s right marriage was subsisting.
leg with his hand; tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed Complainant averred that on February 2002, he was employed by
her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his finger against respondent as a financial consultant to assist the latter on technical and
her private part. Given the circumstances in which he committed them, his acts financial matters in the latter’s numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation
were not merely offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful and filed with different courts. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal
grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this agreement whereby he would be entitled to ₱ 50,000 for every Stay Order
regard, it bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent
to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. He alleged that, from February to
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances December 2002, respondent was able to rake in millions of pesos from the
as to shock the community’s sense of decency. corporate rehabilitation cases they were working on together. Complainant also
Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was claimed that he was entitled to the amount of ₱ 900,000 for the 18 Stay Orders
then a Public Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent issued by the courts as a result of his work with respondent, and a total of ₱
litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then such a client. He also 4,539,000 from the fees paid by their clients.
disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve others and to be accountable at Complainant alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful
all times, because he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client solicitation of cases in violation of Section 27 of the Code of Professional
then in desperate need of his legal assistance. Responsibility. Allegedly respondent set up two financial consultancy firms, Jesi
Respondent is suspended from practice of law for two years with and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., and used them as
stern warning. fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases.
On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused
Nebreja vs Reonal (A.C. No. 9896, March 19, 2014) respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other
Facts: Ma. Elena Carlos Nebreja (complainant) filed an administrative women while his first marriage was subsisting. He submitted a Certification
complaint against Atty. Benjamin Reonal (respondent) for his failure to file the dated 13 July 2005 issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General-National
contracted petition for annulment of marriage in her behalf; for his Statistics Office (NSO) certifying that Bede S. Tabalingcos, herein respondent,
misrepresentation on its status; and for his use of a fictitious office address. contracted marriage thrice: first, on 15 July 1980 with Pilar M. Lozano, which
Complainant engaged respondent's services to file her petition for took place in Dasmarinas, Cavite; the second time on 28 September 1987 with
annulment. She paid in cash and in checks, the various fees he asked from her Ma. Rowena Garcia Piñon in the City of Manila; and the third on 07 September
on several occasions which totaled ₱55,000.00. After paying respondent, 1989 with Mary Jane Elgincolin Paraiso in Ermita, Manila.
however, complainant did not receive any word from him with regard to the In his defense, respondent denied the charges against him. He
status of her petition for annulment other than his claim that they needed to asserted that complainant was not an employee of his law firm – Tabalingcos
wait for her appointment with the psychologist evaluation. and Associates Law Office – but of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., where the
On April 4, 2005, respondent told complainant that her petition for former is a major stockholder. Respondent also alleged that there was no verbal
annulment was dismissed for lack of evidence. He then again asked for sums of agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of
money, on separate occasions, totalling ₱25,900.00, to pay for the psychological professional fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the
test, the sheriff’s fee, the re-filing fee, and the publication. salary of complainant had been paid.
Complainant again, despite respondent’s receipt of sums of money, As to the charge of unlawful solicitation, respondent denied
failed to receive any update from respondent. Respondent also refused to give committing any. He contended that his law firm had an agreement with Jesi and
copies of the annulment case file despite repeated request from complainant. Jane Management, Inc., whereby the firm would handle the legal aspect of the
When complainant check on the office address of respondent she discovered corporate rehabilitation case; and that the latter would attend to the financial
that it was inexistent and the address on the respondent’s calling card was his aspect of the case’ such as the preparation of the rehabilitation plans to be
address. presented in court.
In his answer and position paper, respondent denied having been On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit
engaged by complainant to handle her petition for annulment and having been submitted by William Genesis, a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane
paid therefor. In particular, respondent averred that complainant did not Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been retracted by
engage him to be her lawyer because she was unemployed and could not afford the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations
his legal services; that he was the retained counsel of one Desiree Dee, regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.
complainant’s associate, in the prosecution of labor, civil and criminal cases, but
 The IBP made the following recommendations, on the first charge, various affidavits of recovery purportedly signed by the parcels’ (fictitious)
for dishonesty for the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed owners. Respondent then caused the annotation of these documents on the
for lack of merit. The Commission ruled that the charge should have been filed TCTs of the seven parcels. Also, respondent caused the publication of notices
with the proper courts since it was only empowered to determine respondent’s where he represented himself as the owner of the parcels and announced that
administrative liability. On this matter, complainant failed to prove dishonesty these were for sale. Later, respondent succeeded in selling the seven parcels.
on the part of respondent. On the second charge, the Commission found Hence this complaint.
respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for having Held: It is clear that respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty,
advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that and deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR when he executed the
he be reprimanded for the violation. It failed, though, to point out exactly the revocations of SPAs and affidavits of recovery and in arrogating for himself the
specific provision he violated. ownership of the seven (7) subject parcels.
As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be While it may be true that complainant Lilia Tabang herself engaged
guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of in illicit activities, the complainant’s own complicity does not negate, or even
Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It mitigate, the repugnancy of respondent’s offense. Quite the contrary, his
found that complainant was able to prove through documentary evidence that offense is made even graver. He is a lawyer who is held to the highest standards
respondent committed bigamy twice by marrying two other women while the of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Perverting what is expected of
latter’s first marriage was subsisting.40 Due to the gravity of the acts of him, he deliberately and cunningly took advantage of his knowledge and skill of
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his the law to prejudice and torment other individuals.
name be stricken off the roll of attorneys. Given the glaring disparity between the evidence adduced by
Held: The Court affirms the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against complainants and the sheer lack of evidence adduced by respondent, this Court
respondent. The first charge of complainant against respondent for the is led to no other reasonable conclusion than that respondent committed the
nonpayment of the former’s share in the fees, if proven to be true is based on acts of which he is accused and that he acted in a manner that is unlawful,
an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional dishonest, immoral, and deceitful in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide Professional Responsibility.
the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. Respondent is disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll
On the second charge the records reveals that respondent indeed of attorneys.
used the business entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and to
advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate Santeco vs Avance (A.C. No. 5834, February 22, 2011)
rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Facts: The case originated from an administrative complaint filed by
Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. Teresita D. Santeco against
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, an
that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for reconveyance
consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to procure and damages.
professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases. The The Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among
letter clearly states that, should the prospective client agree to the proposed others, abandoning her clients cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to
fees, respondent would render legal services related to the former’s loan comply with lawful orders directed at her without any explanation for doing so.
obligation with a bank. This circumvention is considered objectionable and She was ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years.
violates the Code, because the letter is signed by respondent as President of Subsequently, while respondents five-year suspension from the practice of law
Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., and not as partner or associate of a law firm. was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of
Respondent is reprimanded. Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report dated November 12, 2007 to then
The Court finds him guilty of gross immorality regarding the third Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock informing the latter that respondent
charge. Respondent’s regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements had appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she
indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross misrepresented herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao. The Court then fined respondent
ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under for indirect contempt. Despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay
the old Civil Code provisions. Respondent is disbarred. the fine imposed.
Held: In view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent unfit to
Tabang vs Gacott (A.C. No. 6490, July 9, 2013) continue as a member of the bar.
Facts: This case involves a complaint for disbarment directly filed with the As an officer of the court, it is a lawyers duty to uphold the dignity
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
of engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in violation of shown by a lawyers obedience to court orders and processes.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the
Complainants alleged that sometime in 1984 and 1985, complainant bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross
Lilia Tabang sought the advice of Judge Eustaquio Gacott, respondent Atty. misconduct and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
Glenn Gacott’s father. Lilia Tabang intended to purchase a total of thirty (30) court.
hectares of agricultural land located in Barangay Bacungan, Puerto Princesa, Respondent is disbarred and her name is ordered stricken off from
Palawan, which consisted of several parcels belonging to different owners. the Roll of Attorneys.
Judge Gacott noted that under the government’s agrarian reform program,
Tabang was prohibited from acquiring vast tracts of agricultural land as she Embido vs Pe (AC. No. 6732, October 22, 2013)
already owned other parcels. Thus, Judge Gacott advised her to put the titles of Facts: Before this Court is the complaint for disbarment against Assistant
the parcels under the names of fictitious persons. Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. (respondent) of San Jose, Antique
Later, complainants Lilia and Concepcion Tabang decided to sell the for his having allegedly falsified an inexistent decision of Branch 64 of the
seven parcels as they were in need of funds for their medication and other Regional Trial Court stationed in Bugasong, Antique (RTC) instituted by the
expenses. Claiming that he would help complainants by offering the parcels to National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Western Visayas Regional Office,
prospective buyers, respondent Glenn Gacott borrowed from Lilia Tabang the represented by Regional Director Atty. Oscar L. Embido.
TCTs covering the parcels. About a year after respondent borrowed the titles Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC, received a written
and after he failed to negotiate any sale, complainants confronted respondent. communication from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the United
Respondent then told the complainants that he had lost all seven titles. Kingdom (UK). The letter requested a copy of the decision dated February 12,
Respondent advised them to file petitions in court for reissuance of 1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084
titles. Pretending to be the "authorized agent-representative" of the fictitious entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna,
owners of the seven parcels, Lilia Tabang filed petitions for re-issuance of titles whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo.
however it was voluntarily dismissed after the public prosecutor noticed It was then discovered that the RTC had no record of Special
similarities in the signatures of the supposed owners that were affixed on the Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the
Special Powers of Attorney (SPA). court files revealed that Judge Penuela had decided Special Proceedings No. 084
Subsequently, Lilia Tabang filed a new set of petitions. This time, she entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando
changed the fictitious owners’ signatures in the hope of making them look more Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria. Informed that the
varied. requested decision and case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt sent a letter
Upon learning that Lilia Tabang had filed a new set of petitions, attaching a machine copy of the purported decision.
respondent executed several documents that included revocations of SPAs and
 After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before them a
document was a falsified court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to number corresponding to the one in their register [and to state therein] the
apprise him of the situation. The discovery of the falsified decision prompted page or pages of their register, on which the same is recorded. Failure to
the Clerk of Court to communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI, perform these duties would result in the revocation of their commission as
triggering the investigation of the falsification. notaries public.
In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed These formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected,
an affidavit on March 4, 2005, wherein he stated that it was the respondent considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to
who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special Proceedings notarized documents. Notaries public entering into their commissions are
No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey presumed to be aware of these elementary requirements. It is appalling and
Laserna for a fee of P60,000.00. inexcusable that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly
The NBI recommended that the respondent be prosecuted for because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is
falsification of public document and that disbarment proceedings be not an acceptable justification for breaking the law.
commenced. Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from
Respondent denied any participation in the falsification. He insisted being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged
that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirley's petition for the annulment of communication arising from an attorney-client relationship
her marriage; that he had given advice on the pertinent laws involved and the The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by
different grounds for the annulment of marriage; that in June 2004, Dy Quioyo the task of dissociating their relation to their clients as witnesses from that as
had gone back to him to present a copy of what appeared to be a court decision advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them.
among others. The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the
defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date and
Held: Indeed, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have
a court decision in consideration of a sum of money. possibly committed the crime charged against them.
The deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered
was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, insulting words and veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is
the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.
the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the Notarial Law
personal status of a person. and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is Fined for
The Court finds respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Php3,00.00.
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and disbars
him. Khan vs Simbillo (A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003)
Facts: This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that
Santiago vs Rafanan (A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004) appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
Facts: A complaint was filed by Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.
of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), for the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public
Rafanan charging him of deceit; malpractice or other gross misconduct in office Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone
under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01, number and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo,
1.02 and 1.03, Canon 5, and Canons 12.07 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling
Responsibility. annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months,
Complainant alleged, among others, that Respondent in notarizing provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody of children.
several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to: a)make the Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of
proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after a
affiants; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; decision thereon has been rendered.
and c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
the documents he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative
Revised Administrative Code. complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and
Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed an Affidavit solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the
in favor of his client and offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
was actively representing his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that on a Court.
certain date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but
Complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the
his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words and veiled threats. time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and
Respondent admitted having administered the oath to the affiants solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute
whose Affidavits were attached to the verified Complaint. He believed, prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer
however, that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should be
and the Counter-affidavits was allowed and that neither did other notaries abandoned.
public in Nueva Ecija some of whom were older practitioners indicate the Held: The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
affiants residence certificates on the documents they notarized, or have entries be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
in their notarial register for these documents. interests or what they owe to themselves. The following elements distinguish
As to his alleged failure to comply with the certification required by the legal profession from a business:
Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent explained 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product,
that as counsel of the affiants, he had the option to comply or not with the and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making
certification. much money;
As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent 2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice
argued that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
matters, in cases where their testimony is essential to the ends of justice. 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder. Respondent 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness,
averred that since they were in his house when the alleged crime occurred, his and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
testimony is very essential to the ends of justice. advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
Respondent alleged that it was complainant who had threatened with their clients.
and harassed his clients after the hearing of their case by the provincial What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising himself as a
prosecutor on January 4, 2001. self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes
Held: The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in
acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be
exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact
date as part of such certification. They are also required to maintain and keep a encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have
notarial register; to enter therein all instruments notarized by them; and to refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
The use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and
residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal
periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling
cards is now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief
biographical and informative data is likewise allowable.
RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR.

B.R. Sebastian Enterprises vs CA (GR No. L-41862, Feb 07, 1992)