Not to Encourage Lawsuit or Proceedings – Rule

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice 1.03

21.Saburnido v. Madrono, AC No. 4497, 366 SCRA 1
(2001)
1.Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo 448 SCRA 282 (2005)
22.Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, AC No. 6672,
2.Sicat v. Ariola 456 SCRA 93 (2005)
September 4, 2009
3.Baysac v. Aty. Aceron-Papa, A.C. No. 10231, 10
August 2016
Encourage Client to Avoid Controversy – Rule 1.04
4.Almario v. Llera-Agno, AC No. 10689, 8 January 2018
23.Ysasi III vs NLRC, GR No. 104599, March 11,
5.Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano Vs. Atty. Gervacio B.
1994
Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Arca, A.C. No. 10540.
November 28, 2019 24.Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546, 65 SCRA 505
(1975)

No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

– Rule 1.01

6.Ui v. Bonifacio, Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

7.Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 276 SCRA
445 (1997)
8.Barrios v. Martines, AC No. 4585 442 SCRA 324
(2004)
9.Yupangco-Nakpil v. Atty. Roberto Uy, AC No. 9115, 14
September 2014
10.Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes, A.C. No.
6488, September 22, 2004
11.Barrientos vs. Daarol, 218 SCRA 30
12.Toledo vs. Toledo, 7 SCRA 757
13.Obusan vs. Obusan, 128 SCRA 485
14.Terre vs. Terre, A.M. No. 2349, July 3, 1992
15.Santos vs. Tan, A.M. No. 2697, April 19, 1991

No dichotomy of standards

16.Tan, Jr. v. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, October 5, 2011,

658 SCRA 527
17.Campugan, et al. vs. Tolentino, A.C. No. 8261, March
11, 2015

No Counseling to Defy Law – Rule 1.02

18.Donton v. Dr. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27,
2006
19.In re Terell 2 Phil 266 (1903)
20.Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 416 SCRA 465 (2003)
SANTUYO V HIDALGO CORONA; SICAT v ARIOLA

FACTS Facts:
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo § Arturo Sicat, Board Member of the Sangguniang
accused respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious Panlalawigan of Rizal charged Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola 
misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyer‘s of committing fraud, deceit, and falsehood in notarizing a
oath and notarial law - In Dec 1991, couple purchased Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
parcel of land covered by deed of sale - It was allegedly § Said SPA was purportedly executed by Juanito
notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register - Benitez, of the JC Benitez Architect and Technical
Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German Management.  Said company had a contract with the
over ownership of said land; German presented an Municipality of Cainta for the construction of low cost
affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying authenticity of his houses.
signature on deed of sale Petitioners' Claim - Hidalgo § What is fraudulent about it is the fact that the SPA was
overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the notarized more than 2 months after the death of Benitez,
legal formalities of a duly notarized document (including the person who supposedly executed it.
impression of his notarial dry seal) – § P3,700T was paid to JC Benitez Architect and
Technical Management for services not rendered (as
Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being consultants).
learned in technicalities surrounding notarial act - They § Ariola claims that the document he notarized was
had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, superfluous and unnecessary, and prejudiced no one,
and they could not have made any imprint of his seal or and therefore he should be exonerated – the document
signature. Respondents' Comments - He denied having was cancelled the same day he notarized it, hence
notarized any deed of sale for disputed property. - He legally there was no public document that existed.
once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and
Jacob Law Office; and admitted that he notarized several Issue:
documents in that office. - As a matter of procedure, § W/N Ariola can be held liable.
documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only
with their approval could notarization be done. - In some Held:
occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry § Yes.
seal of junior associates on documents relating to cases § Notaries public should not authenticate documents
handled by the law firm. unless the persons who signed them are the very same
persons who executed them an personally appeared
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax before the, to attest to the contents and truth of what are
certificates and to personally acknowledge documents stated therein.
before him as notary public. - He knew Editha, but only § His assertion of falsehood in a public document
met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by contravened one of the most cherished tenets of the
Editha so as to personally acknowledge another legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the
document) - His alleged signature on deed of sale was truthfulness of every notarial act.
forged (strokes of a lady) - At time it was supposedly § Ariola is disbarred, and not merely suspended for a
notarized, he was on vacation. year.

ISSUES 1. WON the signature of respondent on the OSCAR M. BAYSAC v ATTY. ELOISA M. ACERON-
deed of sale was forged 2. WON respondent is guilty of PAPA, A.C. No. 10231
negligence Promulgated: August 10, 2016

HELD 1. Yes. Ratio The alleged forged signature was FACTS:

different from Hidalgo‘s signatures in other documents Complainant Oscar M. Baysac (complainant)
submitted during the investigation. Reasoning Santuyos owns a property was mortgaged by complainant to
did not state that they personally appeared before Spouses Emmanuel and Rizalina Cruz (Spouses Cruz)
respondent. They were also not sure if he signed the on December 20, 2000.
document; only that his signature appeared on it. They In February 2003, complainant went to the
had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed Registry of Deeds ofTrece Martires City to get a certified
the signature. 2. Yes. Ratio He was negligent for true copy of the certificate of title of the property because
having wholly entrusted the preparation and other the property had a prospective buyer. However,
mechanics of the document for notarization to the office complainant was surprised to find out that the certificate
secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and had already been cancelled, and a new certificate was
making entries in notarial register. Reasoning issued in favor of Spouses Cruz.
Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, After further investigation, complainant found out
and respondent should have been more discreet and that the property was transferred in the name of Spouses
cautious. Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from Cruz pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale which was
his commission as notary public for two (2) years for allegedly executed on January 13, 2003 for the
negligence in the performance of duties as notary public. consideration of Pl 00,000.00. The Deed of Absolute
Sale which was allegedly signed by complainant, as the The court emphasized that among the functions
owner of the property, was notarized by respondent on of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or
January 13, 2003. Complainant, however, vehemently immoral arrangements. By affixing her notarial seal on
denied having ever signed the Deed of Absolute Sale the instrument, she converted the Deed of Absolute
and having ever appeared before a notary public on Sale, from a private document into a public document.
January 13, 2003 to acknowledge the same. As a consequence, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to
Complainant further stated that the Deed of Absolute the world that: (1) all the parties therein personally
Sale showed that what he allegedly presented to the appeared before her; (2) they are all personally known to
notary public when he acknowledged having executed her; (3) they were the same persons who executed the
the document was his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) instrument; (4) she inquired into the voluntariness of
issued on May 26, 2000 or three years prior to the execution of the instrument; and (5) they acknowledged
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. personally before her that they voluntarily and freely
Complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment executed the same.
dated April 14, 2009 with the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline for violation of Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Her act of certifying under oath an irregular
Rules on Notarial Practice. Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities
Based on the documents submitted, of the persons executing the same constitutes gross
Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
(Atty. Hababag) of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Respondent breached Canon 1 of the Code of
found respondent administratively liable for notarizing a Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 1.01. By
fictitious or spurious document. He recommended that notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale, she engaged in
respondent be suspended for two years as notary public. unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
On February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of
Governors issued which adopted the findings of the The Court finds Atty. Eloisa M. Aceron-Papa
Investigating Commissioner but modified the GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and the Code of
recommended penalty. Instead of suspension for two Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
years as notary public, the IBP Board of Governors REVOKED her incumbent commission, PROHIBITED
recommended the disqualification of respondent from her from being commissioned as a notary public for two
being commissioned as notary public for three years with (2) years; and SUSPENDED her from the practice of law
a stem warning to be more circumspect in her notarial for one (1) year, effective immediately. She is further
dealings and that repetition of the same or similar act WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely. shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the Romeo A. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional (A.C. No. 10689 January 8, 2018)
Responsibility, particularly Canon 1.01. PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.:
SUBJECT:
HELD: 1. 2004 Rules on Notarial
The court affirmed the resolution of the IBP Practice: Acknowledgment– Purpose of
Board of Governors finding respondent administratively personal appearance of affiant.
liable, but modified the penalty imposed. The court note 2.
that the complainant and the IBP Board of Governors FACTS:        Atty. Dominica L. Agno notarized and
cited Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial acknowledged a SPA. This was questioned by
Practice as basis for the complained acts of respondent. complainant Romeo Almario contending that the said
However, the court find Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, SPA was falsified because one of the affiants therein,
otherwise known as the Notarial Law, to be the Francisca A. Mallari, could not possibly have executed
applicable law at the time the complained acts took the same because she was in Japan at the time the SPA
place. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides: was executed, as certified to by the Bureau of
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a Immigration. Hence, he filed a case of disbarment.
notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the In her Answer, Atty. Agno admitted her infraction but
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and offered the
documents in the place where the act is done. The following arguments (1) this is her first offense since she
notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment was first commissioned as a notary public in 1973; (2)
shall certify that the person acknowledging the the case involved only one document; (3) the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is notarization was done in good faith; (4) the civil case
the same person who executed it, and acknowledged wherein the questioned SP A was used ended in a
that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate Compromise Agreement; and finally (5) she is already 71
shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law years old and is truly sorry for what she had done, and
required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so promises to be more circumspect in the performance of
state. (Emphasis added.) her duties as a notary public.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended the penalty
of six (6) months suspension as a Notary Public.
In her Petition for Review, Atty. Agno prayed that the case since she was commissioned as a Notary Public in
penalty recommended by the IBP be lowered. 1973. In addition, Atty. Agno invites our attention to the
ISSUE: fact that she is already in the twilight years of her life.
1. What is/are the importance of affiant’s personal ————————————————-
appearance when a document is notarized? THINGS DECIDED:
2. What is the appropriate penalty to be meted out A)      ‘Acknowledgment’ refers to an act in which an
against Atty. Agno? individual on a single occasion (a) appears in person
RULING: before the notary public and presents an integrally
1. The importance of the affiant’s personal appearance complete instrument or document; (b) is attested to be
when a document is notarized is underscored by Section personally known to the notary public or identified by the
1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which notary public through competent evidence of identity as
states: defined by these Rules; and (c) represents to the notary
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. – ‘Acknowledgment’ public that the signature on the instrument or document
refers to an act in which an individual on a single was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in
occasion: the instrument or document, declares that he has
a)  appears in person before the notary public and executed the instrument or document as his free and
presents an integrally complete instrument or document; voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular
b)is attested to be personally known to the notary public representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign
or identified by the notary public through competent in that capacity.
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and B)       A document should not be notarized unless the
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on person/s who is/are executing it is/are personally or
the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by physically present before the notary public.
him for the purposes stated in the instrument or C)      The purpose in requiring the appearance of the
document, declares that he has executed the instrument affiant is to enable the notary public to verify the
or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party
and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free and
that he has the authority to sign in that capacity. voluntary act and deed.
Furthermore, Section 2(b), Rule 1V of the same Rules ‘
provides that:
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the Ui vs. Bonifacio
person involved as signatory to the instrument or Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
document – Facts:
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos
of the notarization; and Ui was carrying out an illicit relationship with respondent
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children.
otherwise identified by the notary public through Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by
competent evidence of identity as defined by these complainant against respondent before the Commission
Rules. on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
These provisions mandate the notary public to require on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for
the physical or personal presence of the person/s who carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s
executed a document, before notarizing the same. In husband. It is respondent’s contention that her
other words, a document should not be notarized relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were
unless the person/s who is/are executing it is/are married abroad and that after June 1988, when
personally or physically present before the notary respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she
public. The personal and physical presence of the cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that
parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary Carlos Ui never lived with her.
public to verify the genuineness of the signature/s of the
affiant/s therein and the due execution of the document. Issue:
The purpose of this requirement is to enable the Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral
notary public to verify the genuineness of the manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
signature of the acknowledging party and to practice of law.
ascertain that the document is the party’s free and
voluntary act and deed. Held:
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.
2. The Court opts to suspend Atty. Agno as a notary Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, was dismissed.
public for two months, instead of six months as the IBP All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable
had recommended. We are impelled by the following conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing
reasons for taking this course of action: first, the her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
apparent absence of bad faith in her notarizing the SP A relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
in question; second, the civil case wherein the flawed SP respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
A was used ended up in a judicial Compromise considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
Agreement; and finally, this is her first administrative that shows indifference to the moral norms of society
and the opinion of good and respectable members of the evidently consensual.
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to FACTS
a high degree - Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP 22
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March 13,
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR. v ROMERO; July 31, 1996, and the Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996
1997 in an action for disbarment against Martinez
FACTS - July 3, 1996 – the Court required respondent to
In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon comment on said petition within 10 days from notice
Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal - February 17, 1997 – a second resolution was issued
profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar requiring respondent to show cause why no disciplinary
exams on the fourth attempt. action should be imposed on him for failure to comply
with the earlier Resolution and to submit Comment
Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been - July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 for
sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of respondent’s failure to comply with previous resolution
wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill within 10 days
his repeated promises to marry her. - April 27, 1998 – the Court fined the respondent an
Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, additional P2000 and required him to comply with the
Iloilo and were steadies since 1953. Figueroa first resolution under pain of imprisonment and arrest for a
acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A son, Rafael period of 5 days or until his compliance
Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco - February 3, 1999 – the Court declared respondent
promised to marry Figueroa after he passes the bar Martinez guilty of Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of
exams. Their relationship continued, with more than 20 the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and ordered his
or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco imprisonment until he complied with the aforesaid
gave only P10 for the child on Rafael‘s birthdays. In resolution
1971, Figueroa learned Barranco married another - April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was
woman. From 1972 to 1988, several motions to arrested in Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but was
dismiss and comments were filed. On Sept 29, 1988, subsequently released after having shown proof of
the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for compliance with the resolutions of February 17, 1997
failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an and April 27, 1998 by remitting the amount of P2000 and
unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon submitting his overdue Comment:
Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer‘s oath. 1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated
-Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa‘s February 17, 1997 as he was at that time
opposition, resolved to cancel Barranco‘s scheduled undergoing medical treatment at Camp
oathtaking. Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
- 2. Complainant passed away sometime in
June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On June 1997
May 17, 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the 3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot
case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyer of a civil case which was decided in
‘s oath respondent’s favor. Respondent avers that
as a result of his moving for the execution of
ISSUE judgment in his favor and the eviction of the
WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting family of complainant, the latter filed the
the permanent exclusion of Barranco from the legal present administrative case
profession - September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to
HELD the First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act Martinez also stood charged in another estafa case
complained of must not before the RTC of Tacloban City, as well as a civil case
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral involving the victims of the Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for
act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a which the RTC of Basey, Samar rendered a decision
criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be against him, his appeal thereto having been dismissed
reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, by the CA.
flagrant, or shameless acts which shows a moral - June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present case to
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation
the community. Barranco‘s engaging in premarital sexual - The report of IBP stated:
relations with Figueroa and promises to marry suggest 1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal
a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not of the case on the ground that the
constitute grossly immoral conduct. Barranco and complainant died and that dismissal is
Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were warranted because the case filed by him
 does not survive due to his demise as a to a higher standard for it, for a judge should be the
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his embodiment of competence, integrity, and
death. The IBP disagrees, pursuant to independence, and his conduct should be above
Section 1 Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules reproach.
of Court, the SC or the IBP may initiate the - The Court based the determination of the penalty from
proceedings when they perceive acts of previously decided cases, holding that disbarment is the
lawyers which deserve sanctions or when appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a
their attention is called by any one and a crime of moral turpitude.
probable cause exists that an act has been Disposition Respondent was disbarred and his name
perpetrated by a lawyer which requires stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
disciplinary sanctions.
2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27,
shown by respondent, is an utter lack of 2006
good moral character
3. Respondent’s conviction of a crime of moral Facts :
turpitude clearly shows his unfitness to Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel
protect the administration of justice and Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the
therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier,
against him and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru falsification of
4. It is recommended that respondent be public document. A disbarment complaint filed by
disbarred and his name stricken out from the petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty.
Roll of Attorneys immediately Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and
- September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of Governors deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of
passed a Resolution adopting and approving the report the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when
and recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-charge of
- December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion for perjury against Donton. Atty. Tansingco in his complaint
Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation stated that he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
- January 14, 2004 – the Court required the complainant Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and
to file a comment within 10 days long-time resident of a real property located at Cubao,
- February 16, 2004 – complainant’s daughter sent a Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and
Manifestation and Motion alleging they have not been thereby disqualified to own real property in his name, he
furnished with a copy of respondent’s Motion agreed that the property be transferred in the name of
Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is one Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing
involving moral turpitude the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier
is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and
HELD is a deliberate violation of the Code. Donton prayed that
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done Atty. Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It that complainant Donton filed disbarment case against
involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the him upon the instigation of complainant ’s counsel, Atty.
private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness
society in general, contrary to the accepted and in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In
customary rule of right and duty between man and Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the
woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, matter to the IBP for investigation, report and
or good morals. recommendation and for which the latter, through
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP
tantamount to a deprivation of property without due Commission of Discipline recommended suspension
process of law is also untenable. The practice of law is a from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of
privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is his commission as Notary Public. The IBP Board of
to protect the administration of justice by requiring that Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and
those who exercise this important function shall be recommended respondent ’s suspension from the
competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts practice of law for six months. The report was then
and clients may repose confidence. forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and 139-B of the Rules of Court.
afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, Issue : Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of
and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from serious misconduct?
the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
- The court is also disinclined to take respondent’s old Ruling : Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of
age and the fact that he served in the judiciary in various Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that
capacities in his favor. If at all, the respondent was held a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to
any client which will involve defiance of the laws which h the documentary evidence, sufficiently established res
he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a pondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality.
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating Atty. Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.
law commits an act which justifies
disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco TOLEDO v. TOLEDO7 SCRA 757
had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated
his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized FACTS: Paz Arellano Toledo, a dentist, alleged that she
the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against is the wife of Atty. Jesus Toledo, that she supported and
foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his spent for his studies in FEU but after passing the bar, he
knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such abandoned. She also alleged that he is cohabiting with
an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he another woman and borne him 3 children. She prayed
may be suspended. As such, respondent is being for his disbarment from the practice of law.
suspended for six (6) months.
Upon the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General
DANTES A.C. No. 6486. September 22, 2004 which his alleged wife presented pieces of evidence,
respondent was charged for abandonment and
FACTS: immorality and the Solicitor prayed that he be disbarred
Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. At or suspended from the practice of law.
ty. Dantes purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with 
two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate chil Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
dren with them. From the time respondents illicit affairs s the ground "that the charges contained therein are not
tarted, he failed to give regular support to his wife and th based on and supported by the facts and evidence
eir children, thus  forcing her to work abroad to provide f adduced at the investigation conducted by the Office of
or their children’s needs. the Solicitor General." Hence, the Court set the case for
Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and t hearing. The respondent prayed that his motion be first
he birth of their children, but alleged that they have mutu resolved or be denied, hence invoking Section 6, Rule
ally agreed to separate eighteen years before after his wi 128 of the Rules of Court.
fe had abandoned him in their residence. He further ass
erted that Mrs. Dantes filed the case just to force him to r However, instead of doing what the rule requires, the
emit 70% of his monthly salary to her. respondent filed a motion to dismiss without stating that
Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence cons he intended to present evidence in his behalf, thereby
isting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and  waiving his right. The fact that at the close of the hearing
Christian Dave, all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits  conducted by the Solicitor General, he made of record
of his husband and his paramour to prove the fact that h his desire to present evidence in his behalf, is not
e sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs wi sufficient. The correct manner and proper time for him to
th two different women. make known his intention is by and in the answer
  seasonably filed in this Court.
ISSUE:
whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the Now, to resolve the case.
subsistence of marriage warrants the disbarment of a
 lawyer. ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Toledo be disbarred or
  suspended.
RULING:
Yes. RULING: Yes. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers  wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitf him a child, has failed to maintain the highest degree of
ul conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that co morality expected and required of a member of the Bar.
nduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to sho Hence, he is disbarred from the practice of law.
w indifference to the opinion of good and respectable me
mbers of the community. Through a rigorous test by the Solicitor, the maid of
To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers condu respondent, Marina Payot, also testified that the lawyer
ct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is  was living with a person named Corazon Toledo as wife
it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so of the respondent with a child of their own, named Angie.
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree orc Lino Domingo, operator-mechanic in the Bureau of
ommitted under such scandalous or revolting circumstan Public Highways, also stated that he knows the lawyer
ces as to shock the common sense of decency. and her wife, Corazon, for he goes to the lawyer’s
residence every now and then.
Undoubtedly, respondents act of engaging in illicit relatio
nships with two different women during the subsistence  The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of
of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly im credence.
moral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate san
ctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction wit Barrientos vs. Daarol
 FACTS: here in Manila and later in Cebu City, the respondent
Complainant, Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college defrayed some of her expenses; that she filed an
student, and was about 20 years and 7 months old administrative case against respondent with the National
during the time (July-October 1975) of her relationship Electrification Administration; which complaint, however,
with respondent, while respondent Transfiguracion was dismissed; and then she instituted the present
Daarol is married, General Manager of Zamboanga del disbarment proceedings against respondent.
Norte Electric Cooperative, and 41 years old at the time
of the said relationship. In view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully
Respondent is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with recommend that after hearing, respondent
whom be has a son; that the marriage ceremony was Transfiguracion Daarol be disbarred as a lawyer.
solemnized on September 24, 1955 at Liloy, Zamboanga
del Norte by a Catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Anacleto ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Daarol is grossly
Pellamo, and that said respondent had been separated immoral.
from his wife for about 16 years at the time of his
relationship with complainant.
Respondent had been known by the Barrientos family for HELD:
quite sometime, having been a former student of Here, respondent, already a married man and about 41
complainant's father in 1952 and, a former classmate of years old, proposed love and marriage to complainant,
complainant's mother at the Andres Bonifacio College in then still a 20-year-old minor, knowing that he did not
Dipolog City; that he became acquainted with have the required legal capacity. Respondent then
complainant's sister, Norma in 1963 and eventually with succeeded in having carnal relations with complainant by
her other sisters, Baby and Delia and, her brother, Boy, deception, made her pregnant, suggested abortion,
as he used to visit Norma at her residence; that he also breached his promise to marry her, and then deserted
befriended complainant and who became a close friend her and the child. Respondent is therefore guilty of
when he invited her, with her parents' consent, to be one deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
of the usherettes during the Masonic Convention in
Sicayab, Dipolog City from June 28 to 30, 1973, and he By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease
used to fetch her at her residence in the morning and his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply
took her home from the convention site after each day's demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal
activities; for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the
Respondent courted complainant, and after a week of grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in
courtship, complainant accepted respondent's love on order. Good moral conduct is a condition which precedes
July 7, 1973; that in the evening of August 20, 1973, admission to the Bar and is not dispensed with upon
complainant with her parents' permission was admission there. It is a continuing qualification to which
respondent's partner during the Chamber of Commerce all lawyers must possess. Otherwise, a lawyer may be
affair at the Lopez Skyroom in the Dipolog City, and at suspended or disbarred.
about 10:00 o'clock that evening, they left the place but
before going home, they went to the airport at Sicayab, OBUSAN v. OBUSANA.C. No. 1392
Dipolog City and parked the jeep at the beach, where
there were no houses around; that after the usual FACTS: Respondent Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was
preliminaries, they consummated the sexual act and at working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing
about midnight they went home; that after the first sexual Corporation, and became acquainted with Natividad
act, respondent used to have joy ride with complainant Estabillo presented to be a widow, in which they had a
which usually ended at the airport where they used to child named John. Later, it was known Natividad’s
make love twice or three times a week; that as a result of marriage was still subsisting.
her intimate relations, complainant became pregnant;
That after a conference among respondent, complainant Four days after the birth of John, Generoso married
and complainant's parents, it was agreed that Preciosa (petitioner) and lived for more than a year.
complainant would deliver her child in Manila, where she Respondent took a vacation in Camarines Norte but he
went with her mother on October 22, 1973 by boat, has never returned.
arriving in Manila on the 25th and, stayed with her
brother-in-law Ernesto Serrano in Singalong, Manila; that Preciosa looked for him and discovered that he was
respondent visited her there on the 26th, 27th and 28th living and cohabiting with Natividad in Quezon City.
of October 1973, and again in February and March 1974;
that later on complainant decided to deliver the child in The housemaid, neighbors and several other persons
Cebu City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City, and she known to Natividad and Obusan testified and confirmed
went there in April 1974 and her sister took her to the their relationship.
Good Shepherd Convent at Banawa Hill, Cebu City; that
on June 14, 1974, she delivered a baby girl at the He answered that his relationship with Natividad was
Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City and, named her terminated when he married Preciosa and he only goes
"Dureza Barrientos"; that about the last week of June to Quezon City to provide financial support to Jun-Jun.
1974 she went home to Dipolog City; that during her stay He also denied the testimonies of the maid, the plumber
and several other persons and contended that he does faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, the
not live together with Natividad. pretended defense is the same argument by which he
inveigled complainant into believing that her prior
He also contended that he only left the conjugal home marriage or Merlito A. Bercenilla being incestuous and
for he cannot contain the nagging of his wife and her void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first
interference with his professional obligations. cousins to each other), she was free to contract a
second marriage with the respondent. Respondent
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Obusan should be Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have
disbarred. known that such an argument ran counter to the
prevailing case law of the supreme Court which holds
RULING: Yes. He failed to maintain the highest degree that for purposes of determining whether a person is
of morality expected and required of a member of the bar legally free to contract a second marriage , a judicial
declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab
Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of initio is essential.
his wife that he was guilty of grossly immoral conduct.
Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations DOCTRINE:
with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within
"that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and 1. LEGAL ETHICS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT;
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT; PENALTY OF
good and respectable members of the community" DISBARMENT IMPOSED IN CASE AT BAR. — We
believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent
Thus, lawyer shall be disbarred when he abandoned his Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant Dorothy Terre to
lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had contract a second marriage with him; in abandoning
borne him a child.  complainant Dorothy Terre after she had cared for him
and supported him through law school, leaving her
TERRE v. TERRE without means for the safe delivery of his own child; in
July 3, 1992 (A.M. No. 2349) contracting a second marriage with Helina Malicdem
while his first marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre
FACTS: was subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct"
under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of
charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of admission
Philippine Bar with “grossly immoral conduct,” consisting to the Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this
of contracting a second marriage and living with another error forthwith.
woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage
with complainant remained subsisting No judicial action
having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained
as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with
complainant. TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA A.C.
Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor No. 9000, 5 October 2011
and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy Terre was then Facts:
married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her first cousin, Atty. Gumba obtained a loan of P350,000.00 from Mr. Ta
with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre succesfully convinced n and offered the parcel of land registered in her father’s 
complainant that her marriage was void ab initio and name as security. She even showed Special Power of At
they are free to contract marriage. In their marriage torney that she was authorized to sell or encumber the p
license, despite her objection, he wrote “single” as her roperty. However, Atty. Gumba defaulted on her loan obl
status. After getting the complainant pregnant, Atty. igation and failed to pay the same despite repeated dem
Terre abandoned them and subsequently contracted ands. So, Mr. Tan went to the Register of Deeds to regis
another marriage to Helina Malicdem believing again ter the sale, only to find out that the SPA did not give res
that her previous marriage was also void ab initio. pondent the power to sell the property but only empower
ed respondent to mortgage the property solely to banks.
ISSUE:
Issue:
(1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to Whether or not a lawyer should be subject to disciplinary 
enter into a subsequent marriage actions considering that the deception was made in her 
private capacity.
HELD:
Ruling:
Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of Yes, a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committ
respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the ed either in his professional or private capacity. Canon 7 
first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant’s of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all l
evidence as to the basic fact which underscores that bad awyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of t
he legal profession. Lawyers are similarly required, unde Cunanan, the acting Registrar and signatory of the new
r Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code, not to engage in  annotations. Thus, they claimed to be thereby
any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct prejudiced.
.
In the case at bar, Atty. Gumba’s actions clearly show th Issue: Whether or not they are guilty of misconduct
at she deceived complainant into lending money to her t
hrough the use of documents and false representations  Held: The court dismissed the complaints for disbarment
and taking advantage of her education and complainants  for being bereft of merit.
ignorance in legal matters. Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a
However, suspension from the practice of law is sufficien lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed
t to discipline respondent. Disbarment will be imposed as  either in his professional or private capacity. The test is
a penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriousl whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
y affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as  character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
an officer of the court and a member of the bar. whether his conduct renders him unworthy to continue
as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to
Campugan vs Tolentino uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal
Profession.
Doctrine: The test to know if a lawyer committed
misconduct is whether his conduct shows him to be Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good Facts :
demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him unworthy Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel
to continue as an officer of the Court. Tansingco, as the notary public
who notarized the Occupancy Agreement, and against
Facts: others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa
the surviving children of the late Spouses Antonio and thru falsification of public document. A disbarment
Nemesia Torres inherited upon the deaths of their complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against
parents a residential lot registered under Transfer respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-64333(35652). On misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule
August 24, 2006, they discovered that TCT No. RT- 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
64333(35652) had been unlawfully cancelled and arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-
replaced by TCT No. N-290546 of the Register of Deeds charge of perjury against Donton. Atty. Tansingco in his
under the names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort; and complaint stated that he prepared and notarized the
that, accordingly, they immediately caused the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an
annotation of their affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. owner and long-time resident of a real property located
N-290546. at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen
It appears that the parties entered into an amicable and thereby disqualified to own real property in his
settlement during the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-07- name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the
59598 in order to end their dispute, whereby the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. Donton averred that Atty.
complainants agreed to sell the property and the Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,
proceeds thereof would be equally divided between the despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national,
parties, and the complaint and counterclaim would be constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate
withdrawn respectively by the complainants (as the violation of the Code. Donton prayed that Atty.
plaintiffs) and the defendants. Pursuant to the terms of Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed that
the amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion complainant Donton filed disbarment case against him
to Withdraw Complaint dated February 26, 2008, which upon the instigation of complainant ’s counsel, Atty.
the RTC granted in its order dated May 16, 2008 upon Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness
noting the defendants' lack of objection thereto and the in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In
defendants' willingness to similarly withdraw their Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the
counterclaim. matter to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation and for which the latter, through
Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty. Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP
Victorio, Jr. despite their having paid him for his Commission of Discipline recommended suspension
professional services, the complainants felt that said from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of
counsel had abandoned their case. They submitted that his commission as Notary Public. The IBP Board of
the cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and
notice of lis pendens without a court order specifically recommended respondent ’s suspension from the
allowing such cancellation resulted from the connivance practice of law for six months. The report was then
and conspiracy between Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule
Tolentino, Jr., and from the taking advantage of their 139-B of the Rules of Court.
positions as officials in the Registry of Deeds by
respondents Atty. Quilala, the Chief Registrar, and Atty. Issue :
Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of
misconduct? an attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to
malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for
Ruling : Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of which he may be removed or suspended. (Code of Civil
Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting of a client in a
a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the
any client which will involve defiance of the laws which conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify
he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a disbarment.
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating In this case, however, inasmuch as the defendant in the
law commits an act which justifies case of United States vs. Terrell was acquitted on the
disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco charge of estafa, and has not, therefore, been convicted
had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated of crime, and as the acts with which he is charged in this
his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized proceeding, while unprofessional and hence to be
the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against condemned, are not criminal in their nature, we are of
foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his opinion that the ends of justice will be served by the
knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such suspension of said Howard D. Terrell from the practice of
an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he law in the Philippine Islands for the term of one year from
may be suspended. As such, respondent is being the 7th day of February, 1903.
suspended for six (6) months. It is therefore directed that the said Howard D. Terrell be
suspended from the practice of law for a term of one
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF year from February 7, 1903. It is so ordered.
HOWARD D. TERRELL FROM THE PRACTICE OF
LAW. Saburnido vs. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 , September 26,
2001
DECISION Legal Ethics; Attorneys; A lawyer may be disciplined for
PER CURIAM: any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, that
Howard D. Terrell, an attorney-at-law, was ordered to renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court.
show cause in the Court of First Instance, in the city of —A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his
Manila, on the 5th day of February, 1903, why he should professional or private capacity, that renders him unfit to
not be suspended as a member of the bar of the city of continue to be an officer of the court. Canon 7 of the
Manila for the reasons: Code of Professional Responsibility commands all
First, that he had assisted in the organization of the lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of
"Centro Bellas Artes" Club, after he had been notified the legal profession. Specifically, in Rule 7.03, the Code
that the said organization was made for the purpose of provides: Rule 7.03.—A lawyer shall not engage in
evading the law then in force in said city; and, conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
Secondly, for acting as attorney for said "Centro Bellas law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave
Artes" during the time of and after its organization, which in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
organization was known to him to be created for the profession.
purpose of evading the law.
The accused appeared on the return day, and by his Same; Same; A lawyer’s act of filing multiple complaints
counsel, W. A. Kincaid, made answer to these charges, against the complainants reflects on his fitness to be a
denying the same, and filed affidavits in answer thereto. member of the legal profession.—Clearly, respondent’s
After reading testimony given by said Howard D. Terrell, act of filing multiple complaints against herein
in the case of the United States vs. H. D. Terrell, complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of
[1]
 wherein he was charged with estafa, and after reading the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a
the said affidavits in his behalf, and hearing his counsel, decidedly undesirable trait whether in a lawyer or
the court below found, and decided as a fact, that the another individual, as complainants were instrumental in
charges aforesaid made against Howard D. Terrell were respondent’s dismissal from the judiciary. We see in
true, and thereupon made an order suspending him from respondent’s tenacity in pursuing several cases against
his office as a lawyer in the Philippine Islands, and complainants not the persistence of one who has been
directed the clerk of the court to transmit to this court a grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is
certified copy of the order of suspension, as well as a full trying to exact revenge.
statement of the facts upon which the same was based.
We have carefully considered these facts, and have Same; Same; Disbarment; The supreme penalty of
reached the conclusion that they were such as to justify disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
the court below in arriving at the conclusion that the misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
knowledge and acts of the accused in connection with character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.—
the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" Club were Complainants ask that respondent be disbarred.
of such a nature and character as to warrant his However, we find that suspension from the practice of
suspension from practice. law is sufficient to discipline respondent. The supreme
The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
objects, for the purpose of violating or evading the laws misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a
we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the prospective client for the purpose of obtaining
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence employment. Thus in this jurisdiction, the Court adheres
calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian
penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. In this machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the
case, we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction nobility of the legal profession.
against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services
primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to available in an efficient and convenient manner
protect the public and the legal profession. compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall
LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
Facts: solicit legal business
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services.
Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised
them financial assistance and expeditious collection on
their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the
sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano
tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client
relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00.
Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano
and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.
Issue:
Whether or not Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment.
Held:
Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall
not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation
constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule
2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the
CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or
delay any man’s cause. This rule proscribes “ambulance
chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an agent
in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty. In the case at
bar, complainant presented substantial evidence
(consisting of the sworn statements of the very same
persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent’s
office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
business as well as profited from referrals’ suits.
Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice
was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that
respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and
Canon 3 of the CPR and section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Any act of solicitations constitutes
malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Court’s
disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statues