Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr. A.C. No.

5305, March 17, 2003 minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the courts. Respondent’s
disobedience to this Court’s order prohibiting his reappointment to any
Facts: branch, instrumentality, or agency of government, including government
owned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal
Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that consultancy or a special consultancy contract.
respondent violated the court’s decree of perpetual disqualification imposed
upon respondent Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten
entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).
assuming any post in government service, including any posts in
government-owned and controlled corporations, when he accepted a legal
consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), from ALVIN S. FELICIANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-
1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th LOZADA, Respondents.
member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water
District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was DECISION
subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.
PERALTA, J.:
Respondent admits the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well
as the Special Consultancy Contract. However, he raises the affirmative Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1 dated August 2, 2007 filed by Alvin S.
defense that under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular Feliciano (complainant) against respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada
No. 27, Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract (Atty. Lozada) for violation of Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
shall not be considered government services, and therefore, are not covered
by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:

Issue: Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of On December 13, 2005, the Court en banc promulgated a Resolution in A.C.
the court’s decree in the Atienza case. No. 6656 entitled “Bobie Rose V. Frias vs. Atty. Carmencita Bautista
Lozada”3 suspending Atty. Lozada for violation of Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of
Held: the Code of Professional Responsibility, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual
employee, albeit in the guise of an advisor or consultant, respondent has WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada is hereby
transgressed both letter and spirit of the Court’s decree in Atienza. found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision of the
The Court finds that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed Court of Appeals. She is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
duties and functions of a non-advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual period of two (2) years from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
employee of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply, there is a difference repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
between a consultant hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by
CSC M.C. No. 27, s. 1993) and a contractual employee (whose appointment Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land, the Integrated
is governed, among others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointment and Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant, for their
other Personnel Actions). The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the information and guidance, and let it be entered in respondent's personal
Attorney’s Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and records.
promote respect for law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible
SO ORDERED.4 of law as imposed by the Court. Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended the
disbarment of Atty. Lozada.
On May 4, 2006, the Court denied with finality Atty. Lozada's motion for
reconsideration. On May 14, 2011, however, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt
and approve with modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-
However, on June 5, 2007, in an action for injunction with prayer for issuance CBD such that it recommended instead that Atty. Lozada be suspended from
of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction docketed the practice of law for three (3) months.
as Civil Case no. 101-V-07 entitled “Edilberto Lozada, et.al. vs. Alvin S.
Feliciano, et al.,” where complainant was one of the respondents, RULING
complainant lamented that Atty. Lozada appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
and her husband, Edilberto Lozada, and actively participated in the We adopt the ruling of the IBP-Board of Governors with modification.
proceedings of the case before Branch 75 of the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City. To prove his allegation, complainant submitted certified true Indeed, this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of
copies of the minutes of the hearings, dated June 12, 2007, July 3, 2007 and law. When this Court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, as
July 6, 2007, wherein Atty. Lozada signed her name as one of the in the instant case, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions
counsels,6 as well as the transcript of stenographic notes showing that Atty. requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. 13
Lozada conducted direct examination and cross-examination of the Suffice it to say that practice of law embraces "any activity, in or out of court,
witnesses during the trial proceedings.7 which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience." It includes "[performing] acts which are characteristics of
Complainant argued that the act of Atty. Lozada in appearing as counsel the [legal] profession" or "[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the
while still suspended from the practice of law constitutes willfull disobedience use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.” 14
to the resolutions of the Court which suspended her from the practice of law
for two (2) years. In the instant case, Atty. Lozada's guilt is undisputed. Based on the records,
there is no doubt that Atty. Lozada's actuations, that is, in appearing and
On September 12, 2007, the Court resolved to require Atty. Lozada to signing as counsel for and in behalf of her husband, conducting or offering
comment on the complaint against him.8 stipulation/admission of facts, conducting direct and cross-examination, all
In her Comment9 dated November 19, 2007, Atty. Lozada explained that she constitute practice of law. Furthermore, the findings of the IBP would disclose
was forced by circumstances and her desire to defend the rights of her that such actuations of Atty. Lozada of actively engaging in the practice of
husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute. She claimed that she believed law in June-July 2007 were done within the period of her two (2)-year
in good faith that her appearance as wife of Edilberto Lozada is not within the suspension considering that she was suspended from the practice of law by
prohibition to practice law, considering that she is defending her husband this Court in May 4, 2006. It would then appear that, at the very least, Atty.
and not a client. She insisted that her husband is a victim of grave injustice, Lozada cannot practice law from 2006 to 2008. Thus, it is clear that when
and his reputation and honor are at stake; thus, she has no choice but to give Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her husband in Civil Case No.
him legal assistance.10 101-V-07 and actively participated in the proceedings therein in June-July
On January 30, 2008, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated 2007, or within the two (2)-year suspension, she, therefore, engaged in the
Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. 11 unauthorized practice of law.
In its Report and Recommendation 12 dated March 9, 2009, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Atty. Lozada's defense of good faith fails to convince. She knew very well
Lozada guilty of violating Rule 1.01 & 1.02, Rule 18.01 of the Code of that at the time she represented her husband, she is still serving her two (2)-
Professional Responsibility and the terms of her suspension from the practice year suspension order. Yet, she failed to inform the court about it. Neither did
she seek any clearance or clarification from the Court if she can represent in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle.
her husband. While we understand her devotion and desire to defend her The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to
husband whom she believed has suffered grave injustice, Atty. Lozada impose a less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming
should not forget that she is first and foremost, an officer of the court who is the errant lawyer is possible.18
bound to obey the lawful order of the Court. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Carmelita S. Bautista-Lozada is
found GUILTY of violating Section 27,19 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months from the practice of
willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for law, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law: warrant a more severe penalty.

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar
therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to append a copy of
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his this Decision to respondent’s record as member of the Bar.
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful Atty. Lozada is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of her receipt of
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or this Decision, so that we can determine the reckoning point when her
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority suspension shall take effect.
to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. 15 This Decision is immediately executory.

Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty, but this Court SO ORDERED.
recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino culture that amid an adversity,
families will always look out and extend a helping hand to a family member, Bautista vs Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625. February 12, 1990]
more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozada's
actuation was prompted by her affection to her husband and that in essence, FACTS:
she was not representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it proper to In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A.
mitigate the severeness of her penalty. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of lawyer’s oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges
Following the recent case of Victor C. Lingan v. Atty. Romeo Calubaquib and against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this
Jimmy P. Baliga,16 citing Molina v. Atty. Magat,17 where this Court suspended Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges
further respondents from the practice of law for six (6) months for practicing more definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondent’s motion and
their profession despite this court's previous order of suspension, we, thus, required complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant submitted
impose the same penalty on Atty. Lozada for representing her husband as an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed
counsel despite lack of authority to practice law. the following acts:

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro

Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to
of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent
honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.
power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract
with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential Complainant and respondent had their illicit relationship while the latter was
subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT preparing to take the bar examinations. After the admission of the respondent
No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as to the Philippine Bar, complainant learned that he was already married.
attorney’s fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said Respondent, who by now is a lawyer, executed an affidavit, admitting his
property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was
Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of carrying as his. After the birth of the baby, however, respondent had started
Deeds of Iligan City;
to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support. After due
xxx hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Castillo guilty of
gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads: indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you
[respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.
court fees.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a
champertous contract.
YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
HELD: Responsibility; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the same Code.

YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months. The conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must
RATIO: be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which
provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the
expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
standards of morality required of every lawyer. Moreover, the attempt of
Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses
respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and
of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement
undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for
reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a
agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-stultification.
enforce the client’s rights is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements
are against public policy especially where, as in this case, the attorney has The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him
bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his
client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions. CORDOVA vs. CORDOVA
Gentlemen:
CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs. ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO (A.C. No.
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
4921 ,March 6, 2003)
AUG 9 2004.
A.C. No. 3249 (Salvacion Delizo-Cordova vs. Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova.)
FACTS:
 4. That on December 15, 1994, then Chapter President, Atty. MAMERTO B.
In the Resolution of November 29, 1989, the Court indefinitely suspended ALCISO, JR., in compliance with the directive, submitted with the Supreme
Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova from the practice of law after finding him guilty of Court for its consideration Resolution No. 6, Series of 1994 of the IBP
immorality. The Court likewise resolved to consider lifting the suspension Surigao del Sur Chapter recommending the Lifting of the Suspension of the
upon submission by respondent of proof satisfactory to the Commission on herein Respondent for having sufficiently proven to have regained the fitness
Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), that he has and to be allowed to resume the practice of law as an officer of the Court by
continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has commendably supporting and taking care of his children despite the absence,
given up his immoral course of conduct. neglect and abandonment of his wife (Complainant) who is now living with
another man, not her husband in Cebu City....
On January 15, 1992 and February 12, 1992, respondent and complainant,
respectively, filed separate petitions with this Court praying that the 5. That on February 18, 1995, the Honorable Board of Governors of the
suspension of respondent be lifted. In his petition, respondent explained that Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) passed Resolution No. XI- 95-293 ...
the allegations of maltreatment and failure to provide support were products resolving to adopt and direct the IBP Surigao del Sur Chapter to report on the
of complainant's imagination and were unsubstantiated. He alleged that his behavior and substantiation of Respondent's activities pending his indefinite
eldest daughter, Lorraine Salve, who was living with him after complainant suspension ....
left their home in 1989, was enrolled in school and was provided with
material and emotional support. Respondent also submitted the affidavit of 6. That upon receipt of the copy of the above-cited notice, Respondent wrote
desistance executed by complainant on December 27, 1991, attesting that he a letter under oath to Atty. Antonia C. Buenaflor, President of the IBP Surigao
has reformed, living in the conjugal home and provides love and paternal del Sur Chapter categorically explaining the details and story about
affection to his family. On the other hand, complainant contended in her Complainant's continued clandestine extra-marital affair painfully kept secret
petition that she and respondent have reconciled, and that respondent has by the herein Respodnent in the hope of saving the shuttered [sic]
given up his immoral conduct and is supporting his legitimate family. marriage....
Appended to her petition is the affidavit of respondent which was also
executed on December 27, 1991. In the Resolutions of February 13, 1992 7. In compliance with the directive of the Board of Governors of IBP, a
and March 5, 1992, these petitions were referred to the IBP for appropriate report of the Committee dated August 31, 1996 chaired by Atty. Teresita P.
action and recommendation. Donasco was submitted to the Chapter President Recommending that
Respondent's Suspension from the practice of law be NOW LIFTED ...
However, on March 17, 1992, complainant wrote separate letters to Chief [4]cralaw
Justice Andres R. Narvasa and the IBP negating her earlier petition to lift
respondent's suspension. Complainant claimed that respondent still goes In a Report dated April 5, 2000, CBD Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo
home to his live-in partner, Cita Magallanes; does not support his family, and recommended that the suspension of respondent be lifted, noting that:
made it appear that he had changed his ways so she would sign an affidavit
of desistance.[1]cralaw In the months following, complainant sent two other ... complainant has always informed the Supreme Court as well as this office
letters of a similar tenor.[2]cralaw At about the same time, Lorraine Salve of any further acts of immorality committed by respondent. The latest letter
Cordova wrote the Court in support of her father's petition.[3]cralaw from the complainant was received in June 1992. Since then up to the
present, complainant has been silent on her husband's conduct. The silence
On January 30, 1998, the CBD received a Manifestation/Motion from could only be interpreted that respondent has made amends and has
respondent reiterating his plea that his suspension be lifted. Respondent reformed.
stated:
It has been more than 10 years that respondent has suffered the effect of his
suspension from the practice of his legal profession. Such suspension has
not only affected him but it has also an adverse effect to [sic] his family respondent was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily
particularly to [sic] his children. dealt with for his non-compliance, a copy of which was received by
respondent on November 12, 2003.
This office is convinced that respondent has reformed as reported by his IBP
Chapter. Furthermore, more than ten years suspension from the practice of Considering that up to this late date, respondent has neither commented on
law appears to be sufficient penalty for the acts complained of.[5]cralaw the letter dated January 18, 2002 of complainant by way of opposition to his
motion to lift suspension nor submitted satisfactory proof that he has
On May 29, 2000, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIV- continuously provided for the support of his legitimate family and given up his
000-318,[6]cralaw adopting and approving the report and recommendation of immoral conduct, the Court Resolves to DENY the motion of respondent that
Commissioner Elamparo, lifting the suspension of respondent, copy of which his indefinite suspension from the practice of law be lifted.
was furnished this Court.
SO ORDERED.
In view thereof, the Court directed complainant to comment thereon.[7]cralaw
In a letter dated January 18, 2002, complainant expressed disappointment MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS,
over the move of the Surigao del Sur Chapter in extending assistance to Respondent.
respondent. She contended that the Surigao del Sur Chapter is not in a
position to know that respondent has already reformed, and claimed that For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of
respondent is cohabiting with his mistress, Isabelita Cinciro, with whom he his oath as lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.
has a seven-year old son. She also opined that all the allegations in
respondent's motion for early resolution were lies, and that in 1992, The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar
respondent tried to reconcile with her so that his suspension would be lifted. Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),1 in its Report, are as
Complainant thought that respondent had turned in a new leaf but later follows:
discovered that this was not so. She also recounted the hardships that she
endured with respondent. Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992,
she was referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary
The Court referred this matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One
evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Report dated January 13, Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
2003, the OBC submitted that the Court is neither bound by the findings of
the IBP nor obliged to accept the same as a matter of course. It also On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the
considered the protestation of respondent that the length of his suspension is required fee in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which
more than sufficient punishment and his insistence that he has fully reformed was received by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was
are not fully meritorious since respondent has not submitted proof issued.
satisfactory to the Court that he has met the standards imposed in the
Resolution of November 29, 1989. From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several
conferences with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel
On January 27, 2003, upon the recommendation of the OBC, the Court documents. To facilitate the processing, respondent demanded an additional
required respondent to comment on the letter dated January 18, 2002 of amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon
complainant and to submit satisfactory proof that he has continuously complainant to resign from her job as stenographer with the Commission on
provided for the support of his family and that he has given up his immoral Human Rights.
conduct. Respondent received a copy of said resolution on March 21, 2003
but failed to comply therewith. In the Resolution of October 8, 2003,
On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of One
complainant issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis
who issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds
complainant copies of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application of P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00.
(Of. 156) and a list of questions which would be asked during interviews.
On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand
When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the letter to respondent for the refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred
former that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00) which was ignored by the
Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the respondent.
complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity.
Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent,
Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant however his wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to
demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent business matters.
that there was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the
business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she
refunded if something goes wrong. found out that the respondent had transferred to an unknown residence
apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.
Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the
required fee which was paid by complainant, but the corresponding receipt Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid
was not given to her. by complainant, applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked
during interviews; receipts acknowledging partial refunds of fees paid by the
When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant together with demand letter for the remaining balance of One
complainant that it will be given to her on her departure which was scheduled Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was received by
on September 6, 1994. On said date complainant was given her passport the respondent.2
and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together
with Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel who were also recruits of the Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or
respondent. comment on the complaint, there was no response. Respondent likewise
failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case. No appearance
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with whatsoever was made by the respondent.3 As a result of the inexplicable
Jennyfer Belo and Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of
Officials for carrying spurious travel documents; Complainant contacted the the Commission, the investigation against him proceeded ex parte.
respondent through overseas telephone call and informed him of by her
predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report
Changi Prisons in Singapore. on the case, finding that:

On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose
and respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence of securing a visa for a U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention
at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took of job placement or employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the
complainants passport with a promise that he will secure new travel respondent engaged in illegal recruitment.
documents for complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her
The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the allegation on the matter. In fact she did not mention any particular job or
complainant under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant employment promised to her by the respondent. The only service of the
which negates deceit on the part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a visa for the
partial refunds made by the respondent of the fees paid by the complainant. United States.
However, the transfer of residence without a forwarding address indicates his
attempt to escape responsibility. We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that
herein respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful,
In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the
misconduct for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, by assuring her that he could give her visa and travel documents; that
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he
guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY. DOROTHEO and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material
CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the gain.
fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the
Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and
Court.4 dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable
practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the
Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the
case was elevated to the IBP Board of Governors for review. The Board in a lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but
Resolution5 dated December 4, 1998 resolved to adopt and approve with a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.[6 The nature of the
amendment the recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral
Board states: character.[7 This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to
the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and the practice of law.8 We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to
Resolution/Decisions as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully continue in the practice of law.9
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with
an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis be DISBARRED for It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and
having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in unlawful, liberty of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents.
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. How often have victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters
been imprisoned in foreign lands because they were provided fake travel
We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the
contained in its Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not only are
report. respondents acts illegal, they are also detestable from the moral point of
view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar
After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we and the administration of justice.
find the resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We
agree with the finding of the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
was not established because complainant failed to substantiate her those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.10 We The Antecedent Facts
must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good Complainant alleged that on 14 September 2000 respondent notarized a
behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and Special Power Attorney (SPA)2 supposedly executed by her. The SPA
declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be authorizes complainant’s brother to mortgage her real property located in
Antipolo City. Complainant averred that she never appeared before
heard.11
respondent. She maintained that it was impossible for her to subscribe to the
questioned document in the presence of respondent on 14 September 2000
Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with since she was in Germany at that time.
the orders of the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the
IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we To support her contention, complainant presented a certified true copy of her
find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of German passport3 and a Certification from the Bureau of Immigration and
Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward Deportation (BID)4 indicating that she arrived in the Philippines on 22 June
complainant. 2000 and left the country on 4 August 2000. The passport further indicated
that she arrived again in the Philippines only on 1 July 2001.
Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the
Complainant submitted that because of respondent’s act, the property
P114,000.00 she paid the respondent is in order.12 Respondent not only subject of the SPA was mortgaged and later foreclosed by the Rural Bank of
unjustifiably refused to return the complainants money upon demand, but he Antipolo City.
stubbornly persisted in holding on to it, unmindful of the hardship and
humiliation suffered by the complainant. In his answer,5 respondent denied the allegations in the complaint. He
narrated that sometime in the middle of year 2000, spouses Wilfredo and
WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his Lorena Gusi approached him to seek advice regarding the computer
name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this business they were planning to put up. During one of their meetings, the
Decision be FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on spouses allegedly introduced to him a woman by the name of Nesa G.
Isenhardt, sister of Wilfredo, as the financier of their proposed business.
the personal records of respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to
the complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred Fourteen
Respondent further narrated that on 14 September 2000, spouses Gusi,
Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the amount he collected from together with the woman purporting to be the complainant, went to his office
her. to have the subject SPA notarized. He maintained that the parties all signed
in his presence, exhibiting to him their respective Community Tax Certificates
SO ORDERED. (CTCs). He added that the complainant even presented to him the original
NESA ISENHARDT, Complainant, copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 6 of the property subject of the
SPA evidencing her ownership of the property.
vs.
ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, Respondent.
Respondent noted that spouses Gusi even engaged his services as counsel
DECISION in a civil case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City.
PEREZ, J.: The expenses incurred for the case, which was predicated on the closure of
their computer business for non-payment of rentals, was allegedly financed
This case stemmed from the verified complaint 1 filed with the Integrated Bar by complainant. The professional engagement with the spouses was,
of the Philippines (IBP) on 9 September 2004 by Nesa G. Isenhardt however, discontinued in view of differences of opinion between lawyer and
(complainant), through her counsel Atty. Edgardo Golpeo, seeking the clients, as well as, non-payment of respondent’s professional fees.
disbarment of respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real (respondent) for allegedly
notarizing a document even without the appearance of one of the parties. Respondent concluded that complainant’s cause of action had already
prescribed. He argued that under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission
on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a complaint The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly
for disbarment prescribes in two years from the date of professional authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or
misconduct. Since the document questioned was notarized in year 2000, the documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer
accusation of misconduct which was filed only in September 2004 had taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the
already prescribed. Moreover, respondent noted that the SPA in question instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
authorizing the grantee Wilfredo Gusi to mortgage the property of executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
complainant was not used for any transaction with a third person prejudicial certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to
to the latter. The annotation at the back of the TCT 7 would show that the keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
property subject of the SPA was instead sold by complainant to her brother
Wilfredo for ₱500,000.00 on 12 January 2001. Thus, he submits that the SPA Such requirement of affiant’s personal appearance was further emphasized
did not cause grave injury to the complainant. in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which
provides that:
The IBP Report and Recommendation
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
On 8 September 2006, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. the instrument or document –
XVII-2006-405,8 which adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner. IBP Commissioner (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the
Dennis A. B. Funa, after due proceeding, found respondent guilty of gross notarization; and
negligence as a notary public and recommended that he be suspended from
the practice of law for one year and disqualified from reappointment as notary (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified
public for two (2) years. by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules.
Aggrieved, respondent on 13 November 2006 filed a Motion for
Reconsideration10 of the aforesaid Resolution. This was, however, denied by Respondent insists that complainant appeared before him and subscribed to
the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution dated 11 December 2009. the SPA subject of the instant case. His contention, however, cannot prevail
over the documentary evidence presented by complainant that she was not
Our Ruling in the Philippines on 14 September 2000, the day the SPA was allegedly
notarized. Respondent may have indeed met complainant in person during
We sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP. As stated by the the period the latter was allegedly introduced to him by Spouses Gusi but
IBP Board of Governors, the findings of the Investigating Commissioner are that did not change the fact established by evidence that complainant was
supported by evidence on record, as well as applicable laws and rules. not in the personal presence of respondent at the time of notarization. It is
well settled that entries in official records made in the performance of a duty
Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
Responsibility11 when he made it appear that complainant personally duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
appeared before him and subscribed an SPA authorizing her brother to stated.13 This principle aptly covers the Certification from the BID that
mortgage her property. complainant left the Philippines on 4 August 2000 and arrived back only on 1
July 2001.
It cannot be overemphasized that a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the same person who executed Respondent’s contention was further negated when he claimed that
it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of complainant presented to him the original TCT of the property subject of the
what are stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the SPA. A perusal of the TCT would reveal that ownership of the property was
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain transferred to complainant only on 10 January 2001. Thus, it could not have
that the document is the party’s free act.12 been presented to respondent by complainant on 14 September 2000.

Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states:
The allegation of respondent that there were other documents subscribed by Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
complainant during the interim of 4 August 2000 and 1 July 2001 or the time Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their
that she was supposed to be in Germany deserves scant consideration. Such information and guidance. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to
allegation was refuted during the hearing before the Investigating respondent’s personal record as attorney.
Commissioner when counsel for complainant informed Commissioner Funa
that those documents are subjects of criminal and civil cases pending before SO ORDERED.
the Regional Trial Courts of Pasig, Antipolo and Quezon City, 14 where the
documents are being contested for being spurious in character. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
Anent respondent’s claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1,
Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure 15 of the Commission on Bar Discipline, we
agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the rule should be construed DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.
to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. 104599 March 11, 1994
To rule otherwise would cause injustice to parties who may have discovered 231 SCRA 173
the wrong committed to them only at a much later date. In this case, the FACTS:
complaint was filed more than three years after the commission of the act Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The
because it was only after the property was foreclosed that complainant private respondent (father) owns a
discovered the SPA. hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner (son) is employed in the
hacienda as the farm administrator. In
November 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He
The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with was confined and while he’s nursing
public interest.16 It is not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De
documents executed by parties who are willing to pay the fees for Ysasi III filed against his father for
notarization. It is of no moment that the subject SPA was not utilized by the illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father
grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly invoked that his son actually
transferred from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale abandoned his work.
consummated between them. What is being penalized is respondent’s act of ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
notarizing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. By HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
notarizing the questioned document, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, constitute abandonment, there must
immoral or deceitful conduct.17 A notarized document is by law entitled to full be:
credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason,
the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of and
the public in notarized documents will be undermined.18 1âwphi1 b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
With the second element as the more determinative factor and being
In a catena of cases,19 we ruled that a lawyer commissioned as notary public manifested by some overt acts. No such
having thus failed to discharge his duties as a notary public, the revocation of intent was proven in this case.
his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both
notary public for a period of two years and suspension from the practice of camps failed to exert all reasonable
law for one year, are in order. efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and
WHEREFORE, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Leonardo M. immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
Real is hereby REVOKED. He is disqualified from reappointment as notary that the parties involved are father
public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an
for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a earnest effort by the lawyers to have
repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort
severely. He is directed to report the date of receipt of this Decision in order was made. The useful function of a
to determine the date of effectivity of his suspension.
lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by With the second element as the more determinative factor and being
advising settlement or withholding manifested by some overt acts. No such
suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise intent was proven in this case.
counsel in every phase of life. He The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both
should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather camps failed to exert all reasonable
than a virtuoso of technicality in the efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
conduct of litigation. consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that that the parties involved are father
“(a) lawyer shall encourage his and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair earnest effort by the lawyers to have
settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort
was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In was made. The useful function of a
the same manner, the labor lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by
arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the advising settlement or withholding
letter and spirit of the Labor Code suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise
mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable counsel in every phase of life. He
settlement of a labor dispute within should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather
his jurisdiction.” than a virtuoso of technicality in the
conduct of litigation.
If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of
the proceedings in Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that
this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same “(a) lawyer shall encourage his
DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair
104599 March 11, 1994 settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what
231 SCRA 173 was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In
FACTS: the same manner, the labor
Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the
private respondent (father) owns a letter and spirit of the Labor Code
hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner (son) is employed in the mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable
hacienda as the farm administrator. In settlement of a labor dispute within
November 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He his jurisdiction.”
was confined and while he’s nursing
from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of
Ysasi III filed against his father for the proceedings in
illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same
invoked that his son actually DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.
abandoned his work. 104599 March 11, 1994
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work. 231 SCRA 173
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To FACTS:
constitute abandonment, there must Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The
be: private respondent (father) owns a
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner (son) is employed in the
and hacienda as the farm administrator. In
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. November 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He
was confined and while he’s nursing
from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of
Ysasi III filed against his father for the proceedings in
illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same
invoked that his son actually DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.
abandoned his work. 104599 March 11, 1994
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work. 231 SCRA 173
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To FACTS:
constitute abandonment, there must Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The
be: private respondent (father) owns a
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner (son) is employed in the
and hacienda as the farm administrator. In
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. November 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He
With the second element as the more determinative factor and being was confined and while he’s nursing
manifested by some overt acts. No such from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De
intent was proven in this case. Ysasi III filed against his father for
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father
camps failed to exert all reasonable invoked that his son actually
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in abandoned his work.
consideration of the direct and ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
that the parties involved are father constitute abandonment, there must
and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an be:
earnest effort by the lawyers to have a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason,
both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort and
was made. The useful function of a b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by With the second element as the more determinative factor and being
advising settlement or withholding manifested by some overt acts. No such
suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise intent was proven in this case.
counsel in every phase of life. He The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both
should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather camps failed to exert all reasonable
than a virtuoso of technicality in the efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
conduct of litigation. consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that that the parties involved are father
“(a) lawyer shall encourage his and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair earnest effort by the lawyers to have
settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort
was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In was made. The useful function of a
the same manner, the labor lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by
arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the advising settlement or withholding
letter and spirit of the Labor Code suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise
mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable counsel in every phase of life. He
settlement of a labor dispute within should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather
his jurisdiction.” than a virtuoso of technicality in the
conduct of litigation.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an
“(a) lawyer shall encourage his earnest effort by the lawyers to have
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair both parties find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort
settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what was made. The useful function of a
was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by
the same manner, the labor advising settlement or withholding
arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise
letter and spirit of the Labor Code counsel in every phase of life. He
mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather
settlement of a labor dispute within than a virtuoso of technicality in the
his jurisdiction.” conduct of litigation.

If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that
the proceedings in “(a) lawyer shall encourage his
this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair
DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what
104599 March 11, 1994 was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In
231 SCRA 173 the same manner, the labor
FACTS: arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the
Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The letter and spirit of the Labor Code
private respondent (father) owns a mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable
hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner (son) is employed in the settlement of a labor dispute within
hacienda as the farm administrator. In his jurisdiction.”
November 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He
was confined and while he’s nursing If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of
from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De the proceedings in
Ysasi III filed against his father for this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same
illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father DE YSASI VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.
invoked that his son actually 104599 March 11, 1994
abandoned his work.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work. FACTS:
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
constitute abandonment, there must Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The
be: private respondent (father) owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. petitioner
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, (son) is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. In November
and 1982, petitioner underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was confined
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. and while he’s nursing from his infections he was terminated, without due
With the second element as the more determinative factor and being process, by his father. De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal
manifested by some overt acts. No such before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his
intent was proven in this case. son actually abandoned his work.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both
camps failed to exert all reasonable ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering constitute abandonment, there must be:
that the parties involved are father
a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and
b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. • LINSANGAN also attached TOLENTINO's calling card.
• TOLENTINO denied knowing LABIANO and authorizing the printing and
With the second element as the more determinative factor and being circulation of the said calling card.
manifested by some overt acts. No such intent was proven in this case. The • The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both camps the IBP.
failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably • The CBD recommended that TOLENTINO be reprimanded as it found that
out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate he:
consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering that the – had encroached on the professional practice of LINSANGAN, violating Rule
parties involved are father and son. This case may have never reached the 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility
courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties – contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or through
find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort was made. paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it
ISSUE/S:
whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is often
called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every • W.O.N. Tolentino's actions warrant disbarment
phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. RULING:
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that • SC adopts the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of TOLENTINO
“(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if but modifies the recommended penalty.
it will admit of a fair settlement.” Both counsels fell short of what was • The means employed by TOLENTINO in furtherance of the said misconduct
expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
same manner, the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been • • Canon 3, CPR provides:
less than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest,
labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
dispute within his jurisdiction.” – The practice of law is a profession and not a business. To allow a lawyer to
advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade
If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of the profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently
the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same. render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is
called.
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO • • Rule 2.03, CPR provides:
A.C. No. 6672 – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
September 4, 2009 solicit legal business.
– Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
FACTS: personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
• There was a complaint for disbarment filed by LINSANGAN against Atty. • • Rule 1.03, CPR which provides:
TOLENTINO for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
services. proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
– LINSANGAN alleged that TOLENTINO, with the help of a paralegal, – This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind
LABIANO, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. TOLENTINO of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to
promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their gain employment as a measure to protect the community from barratry and
claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and champerty.
sent them text messages. • TOLENTINO clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule
• LINSANGAN presented an affidavit attesting that LABIANO tried to prevail 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
upon a client to sever his lawyer-client relations with LINSANGAN and utilize Court.
TOLENTINO's services instead, in exchange for a loan of ₱50,000. 
• TOLENTINO also committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s The Facts
legal practice, in violation of
• • Rule 8.02, CPR According to Elibena, she engaged the services of respondent lawyer to
– A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to handle an illegal dismissal case, i.e., NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his entitled "Danilo Ligbos v. Platinum Autowork and/or Even Cabiles and Rico
services. Guido," where therein respondents were Elibena's business partners.
• Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as Respondent lawyer was paid Php5,500.00 2 for drafting therein respondents'
borrowers, TOLENTINO violated: position paper3 and Php2,000.004 for his every appearance in the NLRC
• • Rule 16.04, CPR hearings.
– A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. During the hearing set on March 26, 2009, only Danilo Ligbos (Danilo), the
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of complainant therein, showed up and submitted his Reply. 5 On the other hand
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is respondent lawyer did not file a Reply for his clients, 6 despite being paid his
handling for the client. appearance fee earlier.7
• • The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so
that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks
to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his In a Decision8 dated March 31, 2009, the Labor Arbiter ruled for Danilo, and
entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause.  ordered the clients of respondent lawyer to pay Danilo backwages,
• Any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise of separation pay, and 13th month pay.
the Courts disciplinary powers. 
• Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the Worse still, on October 27, 2009, the NLRC likewise dismissed the appeal of
prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended by the the clients of respondent lawyer for failure to post the required cash or surety
IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is bond, an essential requisite in perfecting an appeal. 9
grossly incommensurate to its findings.
• • Atty. TOLENTINO for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and According to Elibena, respondent lawyer misled them by claiming that it was
Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 Danilo who was absent during the said hearing on March 26, 2009; and that
of the Rules of Court is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of moreover, because of the failure to submit a Reply, they were prevented from
1 year . presenting the cash vouchers10 that would refute Danilo's claim that he was a
• Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in regular employee.
reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Professional calling
cards may only contain the following details: lawyers name; name of the law With regard to the non-perfection of the appeal before the NLRC, Elibena
firm with which he is connected; address; telephone number and special claimed that respondent lawyer instructed them (his clients) to pick up the
branch of law practiced. said Memorandum only on the last day to file the appeal,  i.e., on May 28,
2009; that the memorandum was ready for pick up only at around 2:30 p.m.
that day; that left to themselves, with no help or assistance from respondent
ELIBENA A. CABILES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEANDRO S. lawyer, they rushed to file their appeal with the NLRC in Quezon City an hour
CEDO, Respondent. later; that the NLRC Receiving Section informed them that their appeal was
DECISION incomplete, as it lacked the mandatory cash/surety bond, a matter that
DEL CASTILLO, J.: respondent lawyer himself did not care to attend to; and, consequently, their
appeal was dismissed for non-perfection.
Complainant Elibena Cabiles (Elibena) filed this administrative
complaint1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the Elibena moreover claimed that respondent lawyer failed to indicate his
disbarment of Atty. Leandro Cedo (respondent lawyer) for neglecting the two Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance 11 in the position
cases she referred to him to handle. paper and in the memorandum of appeal that he prepared. Elibena pointed to
a certification12 issued on June 29, 2010 by the MCLE Office that respondent
lawyer had not at all complied with the first, second, and third compliance Commissioner also found him grossly negligent in representing his clients,
periods13 of the (MCLE) requirement. particularly (1) in failing to appear on the March 26, 2009 hearing in the
NLRC, and file the necessary responsive pleading; (2) in failing to advise and
Elibena also averred that in May 2009, she hired respondent lawyer to file a assist his clients who had no knowledge of, or were not familiar with, the
criminal case for unjust vexation against Emelita Claudit; that as evidenced NLRC rules of procedure, in filing their appeal and; 3) in failing to file
by a May 5, 2009 handwritten receipt, 14 she paid respondent lawyer his seasonably the unjust vexation complaint before the city prosecutor's office,
acceptance fees, the expenses for the filing of the case, and the appearance in consequence of which it was overtaken by prescription.
fees totalling Php45,000.00; and that in order to come up with the necessary
amount, she sold 'to respondent lawyer her 1994 Model Mitsubishi Lancer In its March 20, 2013 Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
worth Php85,000.00, this sale being covered by an unnotarized Deed of approved the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation,
Sale15 dated August 1, 2009. but modified the recommended administrative sanction by reducing the
suspension to one year.
Elibena claimed that, despite payment of his professional fees, respondent
lawyer did not exert any effort to seasonably file her Complaint for unjust The Court's Ruling
vexation before the City Prosecutor's Office; that the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City dismissed her Complaint for unjust vexation on We adopt the IBP's finding that respondent lawyer violated the Code of
September 10, 2009 on the ground of prescription; and that although she Professional Responsibility. We also agree with the recommended penalty.
moved for reconsideration of the Order dismissing the case, her motion for
reconsideration was denied by the City Prosecutor's Office in a resolution Violation of Canon 5
dated October 19, 2009.16
Firstly, Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members
In his Answer,17 respondent lawyer argued that the March 26, 2009 hearing as an additional requirement to enable them to practice law. This is ''to
was set to provide the parties the opportunity either to explore the possibility ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
of an amicable settlement, or give time for him (respondent lawyer) to decide jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
whether to file a responsive pleading, after which the case would be routinely standards of the practice of law." 20 Non-compliance with the MCLE
submitted for resolution, with or without the parties' further appearances. As requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP
regards the cash vouchers, respondent lawyer opined that their submission member.21 In Arnado v. Adaza,22 we administratively sanctioned therein
would only contradict their defense of lack of employer-employee respondent lawyer for his non-compliance with four MCLE Compliance
relationship. Respondent lawyer likewise claimed that Elibena was only Periods. We stressed therein that in accordance with Section 12(d) of the
feigning ignorance of the cost of the appeal bond, and that in any event, MCLE Implementing Regulations,23 even if therein respondent attended an
Elibena herself could have paid the appeal bond. With regard to Elibena's MCLE Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance
allegation that she was virtually forced to sell her car to respondent lawyer to therein would only cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and
complete payment of the latter's professional fee, respondent lawyer claimed he was still considered delinquent and had to make up for the other
that he had fully paid for the car.18 compliance periods. Consequently, we declared respondent lawyer therein a
delinquent member of the IBP and suspended him from law practice for six
Respondent lawyer did not refute Ebilena's claim that he failed to indicate his months or until he had fully complied with all the MCLE requirements for all
MCLE compliance in the position paper and in the memorandum of appeal. his non-compliant periods.

The IBP's Report and Recommendation In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed
in the said labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate
In a May 18, 2011 Report and Recommendation, 19 the Investigating of Compliance for the Third Compliance Period, i.e., from April 15, 2007 to
Commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of having violated Canons 5, April 14, 2010, considering that NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08 had
17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his been pending in 2009. In fact, upon checking with the MCLE Office, Elibena
suspension from the practice of law for two years. Aside from respondent discovered that respondent lawyer had failed to comply with the three MCLE
lawyer's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements, the Investigating
compliance periods. For this reason, there is no doubt that respondent lawyer Case law further illumines that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence
violated Canon 5, which reads: includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences,
DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to
disciplinary action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of
Violation of Canons 17 and 18 and Rule 18.03 exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere
failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se  a violation.25
The circumstances of this case indicated that respondent lawyer was guilty of
gross negligence for failing to exert his utmost best in prosecuting and in "[A] lawyer 'is expected to exert his best efforts and [utmost] ability to [protect
defending the interest of his client. Hence, he is guilty of the following: and defend] his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his
client likewise serves the ends of justice."' 26 However, in the two cases for
which he was duly compensated, respondent lawyer was grossly remiss in
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT
his duties as counsel. He exhibited lack of professionalism, even indifference,
AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
in the defense and protection of Elibena's rights which resulted in her losing
REPOSED IN HIM.
the two cases.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
With regard to the labor case tor which he opted not to file a Reply and
AND DILIGENCE.
refused to present the cash vouchers which, according to Elibena, ought to
have been submitted to the NLRC, we hold that even granting that he had
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and the discretion being the handling lawyer to present what he believed were
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. available legal defenses for his client, and conceding, too, that it was within
his power to employ an allowable legal strategy, what was deplorable was
Furthermore, respondent lawyer's act of receiving an acceptance fee for legal his way of handling the appeal before the NLRC. Aside from handing over or
services, only to subsequently fail to render such service at the appropriate delivering the requisite pleading to his clients almost at the end of the day, at
time, was a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional the last day to file the appeal before the NLRC, he never even bothered to
Responsibility.24 advise Elibena and the rest of his clients about the requirement of the appeal
bond. He should not expect Elibena and her companions to be conversant
Respondent lawyer did not diligently and fully attend to the cases that he with the indispensable procedural requirements to perfect the appeal before
accepted, although he had been fully compensated for them. First off, the NLRC. If the averments in his Answer are any indication, respondent
respondent lawyer never successfully refuted Elibena's claim that he was lawyer seemed to have relied heavily on the NLRC's much vaunted 'leniency'
paid in advance his Php2,000.00 appearance fee on March 21, 2009 for the in gaining the successful prosecution of the appeal of his clients in the labor
scheduled hearing of the labor case on March 26, 2009, during which he was case; no less censurable is his propensity for passing the blame onto his
absent. Furthermore, although respondent lawyer had already received the clients for not doing what he himself ought to have done. And, in the criminal
sum of Php45,000.00 to file an unjust vexation case, he failed to promptly file case, he should have known the basic rules relative to the prescription of
the appropriate complaint therefor with the City Prosecutor's Office, in crimes that operate to extinguish criminal liability. All these contretemps
consequence of which the crime prescribed, resulting in the dismissal of the could have been avoided had respondent lawyer displayed the requisite zeal
case. and diligence.

We have held that: As mentioned earlier, the failure to comply with the MCLE requirements
warranted a six-month suspension in the Adaza case. Respondent lawyer
must likewise be called to account for violating Canons 17, 18, and Rule
18.03. In one case involving violation of Canons 17 and 18 where a lawyer
failed to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, the lawyer was
penalized with a six-month suspension.27 In another case,28 involving
transgression of the same Canons, the guilty lawyer was meted out the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months and
admonished and sternly warned that a commission of the same or similar
acts would be dealt with more severely.

"[T]he appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of

sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts." 29 Given herein
respondent lawyer's failure to maintain a high standard of legal proficiency
with his refusal to comply with the MCLE as well as his lack of showing of his
fealty to Elibena's interest in view of his lackadaisical or indifferent approach
in handling the cases entrusted to him, we find it apt and commensurate to
the facts of the case to adopt the recommendation of the IBP to suspend him
from the practice of law for one year.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leandro S. Cedo is hereby

found GUILTY of violating Canons 5, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year effective upon receipt of this Decision, and
warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more
severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Cedo's personal record as

attorney-at-law. Further, let copies of this Decision be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator,
which is directed to circulate said copies to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.