1

GUEVARRA VS EALA
A. C. No. 7136        
August 1, 2007

JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA a.k.a Noli Eala, respondent

FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint
for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee
on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
(respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath."

In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:

He first met Atty. Jose Eala, the respondent in January 2000 when his
(complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him
as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
children.
After his marriage to Irene, Guevarra noticed that from January to
March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as
well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you
at Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at
night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go
home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she
slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her
work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Atty. Jose
(respondent) together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday
celebration at which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family
and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and
hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of
the household appliances.
Later on, complainant then, a folded social card bearing the words "I
Love You" on its face in the master's bedroom, which card when unfolded
contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding
to Irene from Atty. Eala, the respondent which was admitted by the
respondent upon filing his answer.
Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly
parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn
sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later
that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with
respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:

14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR

ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together
which was denied by the respondent and states that their relationship was low
profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families,
and that Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned, was still
known to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco.

While on paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading:

15. Respondent's adulterous conduct with the complainant's wife and
his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his
gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in the
bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a "piece of
paper." Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to complainant's
bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue his love for her "until
we are together again," as now they are.

Which was also denied by the respondent. Respondent's relationship

with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that as far as his
relationship with his own family.

Respondent also asserted that he had maintained a civil, cordial and

peaceful relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally
meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship
with Irene.

Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the

institution of marriage by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of
paper because his reference to the marriage between Complainant and Irene
as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage
contract.

And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:

19. Respondent's grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In
pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the complainant's wife, he mocked the
institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the complainant's
marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal profession.
Which was also denied by the respondent.
And for the alleged information that Irene gave birth to a girl and Irene
named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
Respondent in which he denied having "personal knowledge of the Certificate
of Live Birth attached to the complainant's Reply." Respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint due to the pendency of a civil case filed by Guevara for
the annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a criminal complaint for adultery
against respondent and Irene which was pending before the Quezon City
Prosecutor's Office.
 On Mar. 2002, Guevara filed a complaint for disbarment before the
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) against Noli for “grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of
the lawyer’s oath.”
The CBD “found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven.”
However, the IBP Board of Governor annulled and set aside the
recommendation of the CBD.

Aggrieved, Guevarra filed this instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the

reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.

RULING:

The Court rules in affirmative.

Atty. Eala, violated the lawyer’s oath. Lawyer’s oath stated that a
lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the
case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the
Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances,
with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place,
shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period.
Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.
Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the
laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold which constitute a violation of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct,"

Moreover, respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a

married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior
renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and
privileges which his license confers upon him (Tucay v. Atty. Tucay) which
clearly violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law."

Hence, Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for

grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon
1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
2
Advincula vs. Macabata
A.C. No. 7204
March 7, 2007

Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Cynthia Advincula against
herein Respondent, Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, charging the latter with
Gross Immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004, Advincula
sought legal advice from Atty. Macabata about filing a complaint against
Queensway Travel and Tours for not settling their accounts as demanded.
Consequently, the two met on two separate occasions: the first was on
February 10, 2005, where he sent Advincula home and gave her a kiss on
the cheek and embraced her very tightly, while the other incident took place
on March 6, 2005, where Atty. Macabata allegedly kissed Advincula forcefully
while his other hand was holding her breast.
In his answer, Respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal
services to the complainant; that on both times, complainant rode with him in
his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips as the former
offered her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt
Avenue, where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street teeming
with people, thus, it would have been impossible to commit the acts imputed
to him.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral,
or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment
or suspension from the practice of law.

Ruling:
NO. The Court held that the acts of Atty. Macabata would not suffice to
warrant a disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Citing the case
of Zaguirre v. Castillo, the SC reiterated the definition of “immoral conduct”, as
such conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the
same must not simply be immoral, but “grossly immoral”: (1) It must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, (2) or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or; (3) committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
Guided by the definitions above, the Court perceived acts of kissing or
beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie,
forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of Respondent, though,
in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable,
cannot be considered grossly immoral.
In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the
burden of proof required of her; a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing
does not suffice. Moreover, while Respondent admitted having kissed
complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated by malice. Be it noted
also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in
the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24
hours. If Respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could
have brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could
freely accomplish the same.
The complaint for disbarment against the Atty. Macabata for alleged
gross immorality is therefore dismissed. However, he is reprimanded to be
more prudent and cautious in dealing with his clients with a stern warning that
a more severe sanction will be imposed on him for any repetition of the same
or similar offense in the future.
3
ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO
(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)
FACTS:
Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and
Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he
suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in
1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty.
Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the
two and both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and
Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which was later notarized,
stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking the
forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma.
Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.
Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already
pardoned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.

RULING: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui

generis case. This class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts
of undesirable members of the legal profession. As such, pardon by the
offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground
for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his
client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage
and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and
low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed upon
him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit
relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral
conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said, as he claims, that their
relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that their affair
went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.
4
MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DANILO S.
SAMSON, Respondent
A.C. No. 9608 : November 27, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed Complaint for Disbarment
or Suspension before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against
respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct."

Complainant alleged that that sometime in December 2001, at around

midnight, she was sleeping in the maids room at respondents house when
respondent entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips,
sucked her breast, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She
felt pain and found blood stain in her panty. She stated that another incident
happened at respondents poultry farm. Respondent asked her to go with him
to the farm. He brought her to an old shanty where he sexually abused her.
Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and warned her not to
tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.

Respondent respectfully submits that his having sex with complainant

with just compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct.

On December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother appeared before

the public prosecutor and executed their respective Affidavits of
Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened between respondent and
her in March 2002 was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she was
withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as
well as the one she filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
Accordingly, the criminal case against respondent was dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of Atty. Samson violated Rule 7.03.

RULING:

Yes. Rule 7.03. states that; A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with

complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that
he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her
money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his
wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by
enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity
and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his
profession.
 Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by
complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under respondents
care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant
was or was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly
committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such
conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby

DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and
Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
5

BUGARING VS ESPANOL

Facts:
This is petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated March 6,
1998 of the Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite, declaring petitioner Rexie Efren A.
Bugaring guilty in direct contempt of court.1âwphi1.nêt
The incident subject of the petition occurred during a hearing held on
December 5, 1996 of Civil Case NO. 1266-96 entitled "Royal
Becthel2 Builders, Inc. vs. Spouses Luis Alvaran and Beatriz Alvaran, et al.",
for Annulment of Sale and Certificates of Title, Specific Performance and
Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order in the sala of respondent judge Dolores S. Español of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch 90, Imus, Cavite.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the previous counsel of Royal Bechtel
Builders, Inc., the trial court issued an order on February 27, 1996 directing
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite to annotate at the back of
certain certificates of title a notice of lis pendens. Before the Register of
Deeds of the Province of Cavite could comply with said order, the defendant
Spouses Alvaran on April 15, 1996, filed a motion to cancel lis pendens. On
July 19, 1996, petitioner, the newly appointed counsel of Royal Bechtel
Builders, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion to cancel lis pendens. On
August 16, 1996, the motion to cancel lis pendens was granted by the court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by the
defendants. On November 5, 1996, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to
Resolve, and on November 6, 1996, filed a Rejoinder to Opposition and
Motion for Contempt of Court.
During the hearing of this case, plaintiffs and counsel were present
together with one (1) operating a video camera who was taking pictures of the
proceedings of the case while counsel, Atty. Rexie Efren Bugaring was
making manifestation to the effect that he was ready to mark his documentary
evidence pursuant to his Motion to cite (in contempt of court) the Deputy
Register of Deeds of Cavite, Diosdado Concepcion.
The Court called the attention of said counsel who explained that he
did not cause the appearance of the cameraman to take pictures, however, he
admitted that they came from a function, and that was the reason why the
said cameraman was in tow with him and the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the
flimsy explanation given, the counsel sent out the cameraman after the Court
took exception to the fact that although the proceedings are open to the public
and that it being a court of record, and since its permission was not sought,
such situation was an abuse of discretion of the Court.
When the respondent, Deputy Register of Deeds Concepcion
manifested that he needed the services of counsel and right then and there
appointed Atty. Elpidio Barzaga to present him, the case was allowed to be
called again. On the second call, Atty. Burgaring started to insist that he be
allowed to mark and present his documentary evidence in spite of the fact that
Atty. Barzaga was still manifesting that he be allowed to submit a written
pleading for his client, considering that the Motion has so many ramifications
and the issues are complicated.
At this point, Atty. Bugaring was insisting that he be allowed to mark his
documentary evidence and was raring to argue as in fact he was already
perorating despite the fact that Atty. Barzaga has not yet finished with his
manifestation. As Atty. Bugaring appears to disregard orderly procedure, the
Court directed him to listen and wait for the ruling of the Court for an orderly
proceeding.
While claiming that he was listening, he would speak up anytime he felt
like doing so. Thus, the Court declared him out of order, at which point, Atty.
Bugaring flared up the uttered words insulting the Court; such as: 'that he
knows better than the latter as he has won all his cases of certiorari in the
appellate Courts, that he knows better the Rules of Court; that he was going
to move for the inhibition of the Presiding Judge for allegedly being
antagonistic to his client,' and other invectives were hurled to the discredit of
the Court.
Thus, in open court, Atty. Bugaring was declared in direct contempt
and order the Court's sheriff to arrest and place him under detention. He was
sentenced to three (3) days imprisonment and payment of a fine of P3,000.00.
His detention shall commence immediately at the Municipal Jail of Imus,
Cavite
While serving the first day of his sentence on December 5, 1996,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order citing him in direct
contempt of court. The next day, December 6, 1996, petitioner filed another
motion praying for the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Both
motions were never resolved and petitioner was released on December 8,
1996.
To clear his name in the legal circle and the general public, petitioner
filed a petition before the Court of Appeals praying for the annulment of the
Order dated December 5, 1996 citing him in direct contempt of court and the
reimbursement of the fine of P3,000.00 on grounds that respondent Judge
Dolores S. Español had no factual and legal basis in citing him in direct
contempt of court, and that said Order was null and void for being in violation
of the Constitution and other pertinent laws and jurisprudence.8

ISSUE/S
Whether or not the RTC erred in citing petitioner in direct contempt of
court

RULING
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed order dated
December 5, 1996 issued by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification that the excess fine of P1,000.00 is ORDERED RETURNED to
the petitioner.
The Court of Appeals found that from a thorough reading of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearing held on December 5, 1996, it was
obvious that the petitioner was indeed arrogant, at times impertinent, too
argumentative, to the extent of being disrespectful, annoying and sarcastic
towards the court.9 It affirmed the order of the respondent judge, but found
that the fine of P3,000.00 exceeded the limit of P2,000.00 prescribed by the
Rules of Court,10 and ordered the excess of P1,000.00 returned to petitioner. 
6
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty.
Chiong because of the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility dealing with the idea that lawyers should treat
each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not appear
upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their
preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against said client. After which Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the
warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint and collection for a sum
of money and damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and
the Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was reached. Chiong
argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant
in Civil Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless.
He argues that he impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal
investigation had irregularities due to the action of the Prosecutor to file estafa
case despite the pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to submit
counter affidavit and evidence.

ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendant’s purpose of filing for the
collection suit with damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the
estafa case of his client. Clearly there was no need to implead complainant
and Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any participation in the
business transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere
harassment of the two. Chiong was suspended for two (2) years from the
practice of law and was implemented immediately.
7
Torres vs. Javier
AC No. 5910
September 21, 2005
Facts
The complainants, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino,
charge Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in
office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of action against respondent.
1.In the Motion to Expedite filed in the audit case, complainants allege
that it contained statements which are absolutely false, unsubstantiated, and
with malicious imputation of crimes of robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds,
destruction or concealment of UEFA's documents and some other acts
tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their persons.
2.Complainants allege that in the attorney's fees case, respondent, in
his "Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez) Answer/Comment" filed
before the DOLE, used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and
improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial
officer.
3.Complainants allege that respondent made statement that is
demeaning to the integrity of legal profession by stating that;
“It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public asking their
sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a notarial office and sign for
them. These girlfriends, nephews, etc. take affidavits, administer oaths and
certify documents.”

Javier explained that he was angry because Torres had been spreading
reports and rumors implicating his clients including his wife to the burglary.
With respect to the atty.’s fees case, he alleged that Torres, in his Answer, did
not confront the issues but mocked and made malicious accusations against
his wife.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier is guilty of malpractice,
gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.

Ruling
Yes. He is guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an
attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
The respondent's primordial reason for the offensive remark stated in
his pleadings was his emotional reaction in view of the fact that herein
Complainant was in a legal dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be
sustained. Indeed, the remarks quoted are offensive and inappropriate. That
the Respondent is representing his wife is not at all an excuse. Clients, not
lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between
clients should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct toward
each other or toward suitors in the case.
Meanwhile, on statements demeaning to lawyer’s integrity, it is well
entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,
utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of
pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they
may be.
The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so that the
protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of
justice may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may
be gratified. If the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and
alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his privilege.
Canon 8 instructs that a lawyer’s arguments in his pleadings should be
gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may
be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 1
Month and is sternly warned that any future infraction of a similar nature shall
be dealt with more severely.
8
Atty. Bonifacio Barandon v. Atty Edwin Ferrer (2010)

Facts:

Atty. Barandon filed a complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment,
suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary
actions against Atty. Ferrer.

Atty Barandon was alleging Atty Ferrer’s conduct and the words he
uttered at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court - Daet before the start of a
hearing (Civil Case 7040). Atty. Ferrer was drunk when he uttered the words:
"Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya.
Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na
narito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi
kayo taga-rito.”

The Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD

submitted a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty.
Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to
prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Ferrer attributed to Atty. Barandon, as
counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff's affidavit despite
the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that
Atty. Barandon was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found
that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the
presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of
hearing.

The IP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and

approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the
penalty of suspension to only one year. Ferrer filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IP Investigating
Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges
against him.

Ruling:

The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language

in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all

lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and can to towards
their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
 Specifically, in Rule 8.01, "A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to Rule 8.01. Evidence shows that he
imputed to Atty. Barandon pure malice when he had no evidence of the
falsification of the affidavit and that Atty. Barandon authored the same. Atty.
Ferrer also violated Canon 7, particularly rule 7.03: "A lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession. " Ferrer uttered the invectives against Barandon with
intent to annoy, humiliate, incriminate, and discredit the former. A lawyer’s
language should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the
legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of judicial forum. He should be aware that such kind of
public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public
estimation and erode public respect for it.

The SC affirmed the one-year suspension of Atty. Ferrer as ordered by

the IBP-CBD.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of

the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case 01-809 and ORDERS the
suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one year
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
9
Camacho vs Pangulayan

A.C. No. 4807

March 22, 2000

Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional

Ethics, specifically Canon 9 which states that:
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy
with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to
negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his
counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything
that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should
not undertake to advise him as to law.

Facts:

The complainant Atty. Manuel N. Camacho was the counsel of 9

expelled students from the AMA Computer College (AMACC). These students
were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE who apparently had
caused to publish some objectional features or articles in the paper and found
guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student
publication funds. While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and
re-admission agreements were separately executed by and/or on behalf of
some of the expelled students. Atty Regina Balmores of the Pangulayan and
Associates Law Offices filed a manifestation for AMACC. The Quezon City
Regional Trial Court dismissed the civil case.
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers
comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, Attorneys
Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and
Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos claiming that the respondents who were then
counsel for the AMACC, procured and effected on separate occasions,
without his knowledge, compromise agreements (re-admission agreements)
with 4 of his clients in the civil case which in effect required them to waive all
kinds of claims they might have against AMACC, and to terminate all civil,
criminal, and administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred
that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal
profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law.
In his comment, Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that it was only
himself, not one of his co-respondents had taken part in the negotiation,
discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission
Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time
with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-Admission
Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil Case Q-
97-30549 and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement
of an administrative case involving nine students of AMACC who were
expelled therefrom upon the recommendation of the Student Disciplinary
Tribunal. 
ISSUE/S
Whether Attorney Pangulayan is guilty of violating canon 9 of the code
of professional ethics

RULING
Respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately
upon receipt of this decision. The case against the other respondents is
DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Let a copy of this decision be
entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member
of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors recommended
six-month suspension but it would appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty
given the circumstances and the explanation of respondent. It would appear
that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements
were formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for
plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge
of this fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their
parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer,
herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an
inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.