WILFREDO M. CATU vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA A.C. No.

5738, February 19, 2008

Facts:

Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of the units in a
building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said complaint was filed in the

Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila where Respondent was the

punong barangay. The parties, having been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to arrive at an amicable
settlement, were issued by the respondent a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.

Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant
administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground that he committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and
as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.

In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task without bias and that he acceded to
Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was financially distressed.

The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation, they found
sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and, as an elective official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA6713. Consequently, for the
violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Respondent was then recommended for
suspension from the practice of law.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the
government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department
concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.

As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of
Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to
do. The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, he breached of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal
profession, respondent also failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer's Oath
and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any repetition of similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO A.C. No. 4428

Facts:

Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City.
In 1991, they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as
administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the United States of America (USA). On May
13, 1995, complainant confirmed the illicit affair between his wife and Atty. George Florendo by listening through the
extension phone, he heard respondent utter the words "I love you, I'll call you later". Both his wife and respondent
confessed to their love affair that began in 1993. On May 15, 1995, respondent and his wife executed and signed an
affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness. Complainant instituted
the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his
Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Florendo violated the CPR.

Ruling: Yes.

The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide, thus:

"CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. xxxx

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THEINTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORTTHE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. xxxx

Rule 7.03. - 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. "It has been
consistently held by the Court that possession of good moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar
but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession. It is the bounded duty of law
practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar .

In this case, respondent admitted his illicit relationship with a married woman not his wife, and worse, that of his client.
Contrary to respondent's claim, their consortium cannot be classified as a mere "moment of indiscretion" considering
that it lasted for two (2) years and was only aborted when complainant overheard their amorous phone conversation on
March 13, 1995. Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant which in itself is
prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with
Ma.Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTH, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.
Spouses Concepcion v Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa A.C. No. 10681 February 03, 2015

Facts:

This is an administrative case that stemmed from a verified complaint filed by complainants Sps. Concepcion against
respondent Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, charging him with gross misconduct for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the
CPR. Complainant alleges that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel.
Complainants wanted to open their pawnshop business but did not materialize and Atty. Dela Rosa, as their counsel,
knew of the fact that complainants had money intact form their failed venture, and borrowed money from them in the
amount of P2.5M. The checks were issued and Atty. Dela Rosa photocopied them and verified he received the original
checks and that he promises to pay them within 5 days with an interest of 5%. The checks were personally encased by
him. Atty. Dela Rosa failed to pay and despite numerous demands from the Complainant, did not return the money.
Hence an administrative complaint was filed against him by Sps. Concepcion. Respondent denied borrowing the P2.5M
insisting that a one Jean Charles Nault, one of his other clients was the real debtor. He also claimed that complainants
had been attempting to collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose.

The investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal
profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to appear during the
mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CPD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2.5M to complainants, with
stipulated interest. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report but
reduced the penalty against respondent to indefinite suspension from the practice of law and ordered the return of the
P2.5M to the complainants with legal interest.

Issue:

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

Held:

The court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount
of P2.5M, with legal interest to complainants.

In this case, respondent violated Canon 16, Rule 16.04 and Canon 7 of the CPR

The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage
of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the
legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

Respondent borrowed money from complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the lack of any security
on the loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent, complainants relied solely on
the former’s word that he will return the money plus interest within five (5) days. Respondent abused the same and
reneged on his obligation, giving his previous clients the runaround up to this day. Accordingly, there is no quibble that
respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR and Canon 7 for unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by
blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so
doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Thus, he should be equally held administratively
liable on this score. Court deems it appropriate to suspend Dela Rosa for 3 years and return of 2,500,000.00 and the
legal interest thereon.
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No. 7399)

August 25, 2009 | A.C. No. 7399 Antero J. Pobre, complainant Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, respondent

FACTS:

In one of her privilege speeches before the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered the following remarks:

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am
nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer
interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in a different
environment than in a Supreme Court of idiots. x x x

Her speech came as a response to the decision of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) declaring that only sitting members
of the Supreme Court can be nominated for the impending vacancy of the CJ post. Consequently, nominees who were
not incumbent members of the Court, including Sen. Defensor-Santiago, were automatically disqualified.

Private complainant Antero J. Pobre filed the instant petition before the Court, contending that the lady senator's
utterances amounted to a total disrespect towards then CJ Panganiban and a direct contempt of Court. Accordingly, he
wanted disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions to be taken against Sen. Defensor-Santiago.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sen. Defensor-Santiago be subjected to disciplinary action by the Court for her questioned speech.

HELD:

No, the Court sided with Sen. Defensor-Santiago's defense that she should be afforded parliamentary immunity from
suit pursuant to Section 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which section states in part that "no [Senator] x x x shall be
questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof."
Although there was no express admission on the part of the lady senator that she did indeed say those words, there was
no categorical denial either, which the Court ultimately regarded as an implied admission.

Further, The lady senator belongs to the legal profession bound by the exacting injunction of a strict Code. Society has
entrusted that profession with the administration of the law and dispensation of justice. Generally speaking, a lawyer
holding a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct committed while in the
discharge of official duties, unless said misconduct also constitutes a violation of his/her oath as a lawyer.

Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects
their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the
practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court
speaks of "conduct" or "misconduct," the reference is not confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the
performance of lawyers’ professional duties, but also covers such misconduct, which would show them to be unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them.

Despite the dismissal of the letter-complaint, the Court heavily chastised the lady senator for indulging in "insulting
rhetoric and offensive personalities." In fact, her excuse that her questioned speech was a prelude to crafting remedial
legislation on the JBC struck the Court as being a mere afterthought in light of the controversy her utterances had
managed to stir.

Still, the Court held that parliamentary immunity is essential because without it, the parliament or its equivalent would
"degenerate into a polite and ineffective forum." However, it should be noted that "[l]egislators are immune from
deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of of their legislative duties, not for their private indulgence, but for the public
good." PETITION DISMISSED.