CASE

1. MERCEDES NAVA vs ATTY.

SORONGON

2. ARCIGA vs MANIWANG

FACTS
Nava charged Atty. Sorongon with dishonest conduct
representing clients with conflicting interest

She alleged that Atty. Sorongon has been her counsel for so many
years and had represented her in various cases but the
respondent informed her of his intention to withdraw as her
counsel in two of her cases due to his recent stroke his doctor
advised him not to handle cases that is complicated in nature.

The complainant further alleged that she continuously paid for his
fees even the latter has represented clients with hostile interests
and filed a case against her on their behalf

The complainant ha issued several checks which was dishonoured

and that the respondent assisted Francisco Atas in collecting the
amount and assisted in filing a complaint against her.

The respondent admitted that the complainant was one of his

clients

Initially he handled one case but later acceded to represent her in

other cases with or without atty.s fees.

The respondent also admitted having represented Francisco Atas

but he asserted that he did not violate any code of professional
ethics. He insisted that their atty.-ct relationship was already
terminated

Since he handled only 2 estafa cases for her and that Atas did not
know anything that would prejudice her

The complainant pointed out that the respondent did not

withdraw in some of her cases and even if assuming that he did
had withdrawn as her counsel he should not have accepted cases
against her.

Magdalena Arciga asked for the disbarment of Atty. Maniwang on

the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he refused to
fulfil his promise of marriage to her. Their illicit relationship
resulted in the birth of their child.
Magdalena was a medtech student and Segundino was a law
student when they met and became sweethearts but when
Magdalena refused to have a tryst with him, hestopped visiting
her.

ISSUE/RULING/DECISION

Violation of Canon 15.03

It was recommended that the respondent be
suspended for 1 years with a warning that a
similar offense in the future may be dealt
with more severly
When the respondent learned of the decision
he alleged that no formal investigation was
made
The records show that no formal investigation
was conducted by the IBP
Wherefore, the administrative case in
remanded to the IBP for further proceedings.
It is directed to act on his referral with
dispatch.

The solicitor general ordered the dismissal of

the case. In his opinion, cohabitation and
promise of marriage does not warrant his
disbarment.
Complaint for disbarment against the
respondent was dismissed.

3. ATTY. LINCO vs ATTY.

LACEBAL

They renewed their relationship the following month and had

sexual intercourse. When Segundino asked her why she refused
in his earlier proposal she jokingly said that she was in love with
another man and thay have a child and he remarked that he
didnt mind even that was the case
They had repeated acts of cohabitation and started telling his
acquaintances that they were secretly married.
Segundino transferred to Davao del Sur and Magdalena stayed in
Cebu. He continued to send her telegrams professing his love for
her.
When Magdalena found out that she was pregnant Segundino
went to her hometown to talk to Magdalenas parents and told
them that they were already married even they were not really
so. And that the church wedding be deferred until he passes his
bar examination
He continued sending telegrams to Magdalena and reassured her
that they will marry if he passes the bar. She gave birth on
September 4, 1973 but Segundino was not present but he went to
Cebu for the baptism of their child.
On April 25, 1975 Segundino passed her bar exams. Several days
after his oath taking he stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
Fearing that there was something amiss Magdalena went to
Davao but Segundino told her that they could not get married
because they lack money.
In December 1975 she had another trip to Davao but Segundino
told her that they could not get married because he already
married Erlinda Ang.
Segundino followed her and inflicted physical injuries upon her
because she had a confrontation with his wife. She reported the
assault and secured medical treatment in e hospital.
Segundino admitted that he and Magdalena were lovers but
breached the promise because of Magdalenas shady past that
she already had an illegitimate child before Michael.

Administrative complaint of Atty. Linco against Atty. Lacebal

before the IBP for disciplinary action for his failure to perform his
duty as a notary public which resulted in the violation of their

On November 2005, the IBP-CBD found the

respondent guilty of violating the Notarial law
and code of professional responsibility
They also observed that the respondent
wanted it to appear that sice Atty. Linco
appeared before him oJuly 8, 2003 it was
ministerial on his part to natarize the deed on
July 30, 2003.

4. BARRIENTOS vs DAAROL

rights over their property.

Complainant claimed that she was a widow of Atty. Albert Linco,
the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements
consisting 126 sq meters at Valley view executive village, Cainta,
Rizal covered by a Transfer certificate of title no.259001
Complainant alleged that the respondent notarized a deed of
donation allegedly executed by her husband in favour of
Alexander Linco, a minor.
She also alleged that AttY. Linco and her mother Lina Toledo,
mother of the done, personally appeared before the respondent
on July 30 2003, despite the fact that Atty. Linco died on July 29,
2003
She claimed that the respondents connivance with Toledo was a
violatvei of her, her childrens rights and a violation of law.
In his answer, he admitted that he notarized a deed of donation
in favour of Alexander Linco as represented by Lina Toledo.
Respondent narrated that on July 8, 2003 he was visited buy Atty.
Linco through an emissary in the person of Claie Algodon and he
was informed that Atty. Linco was sick and wanted to discuss
something with him.
He pointed out that Atty. Linco was sick but was articulate and in
full control of his faculties
Atty. Linco showed him a deed of donation and the TCT of the
property subject to donation and claimed that he was aked to
notarize the deed of donation in his presence along with the
witnesses
He explained that since he had no idea what he will notarize, he
did not bring his notarial book and seal with him so he asked
Toledo and Algodon to bring the documents to his office.
On july 30, 2003 he claimed that Toledo and Alogodon went to his
law office and informed him that Atty. Linco has passed away and
he was asked to notarize the deed and he consented to do so.
He admitted that he was presented the DOD on July 8, 2003 and
that he was not the one who prepared it and that he only
notarized it on July 30, 2003.

On August 20, 1975, complainant Victoria Barrientos seeks the

disbarment of Transfiguracion Daarol, on the grounds of deceit

He violated the atty.s oath to obey the

laws and to do no falsehood
FOR THE BREACH OF Notarial Law code and
professional responsibility, the notarial
commission of respondent Atty. Lacebal is
revoked. He is disqualified from the
reappointment period of 2 years. He is also
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 1 year and warned that the
repetition of the same acts will be dealt with
more severely.

The respondent was found guity of grossly

immoral act and was disbarred and his name
stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Here, respondent, an already married man
proposed love and marriage to complainant
still a 20 year old minor, knowing the she did
not have the required legal capacity. The
respondent succeeded in having carnal

5. BARRERA vs LAPUT

6. TIONG vs FLORENDO

and grossly immoral conduct .

The complainant Victoria Barrientos is single, a college student
and was about 20 years and 7 months old that time of her
relationship with the respondent, born on Dec 23, 1952 while the
respondent was married, general manager of zaneco, 41 years of
age born on August 9, 1932
The respondent is married to Romualda Sumalyo with whom he
has a son the said respondent had been separated with his wife
for about 16years at the time of his relationship with the
complainant.
The respondent had been known to the Barrientos family for quite
some time, having been the former student of the complainants
father in 1952 and a former classmate of the complainants
mother. He also became acquainted with the complainants
siblings.
He befriended the complainant and they became close friends
when she agreed to be an usherette during the Masonic
convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City from June 28-June 30. He
used to fetch her in the morning and took her home in the
evening.
The respondent courted the complainant and after 1 week of
courtship, the complainant accepted the respondents love. On
the evening of August 20 1973, complainant with her parents
permission was the respondents; partner during the Chamber of
commerce affair at the Lopez skyroom and at about 1 am they
left the place. But before they went home they went to an airport
in Sicayab and parked the jeep at the beach and they
consummated the sexual act and that after their first sexual act,
the respondent would usually have joyrides with the complainant
which usually ended at the beach where they make love for 2-3
times a week. That a result, the complainant became pregnant.
Although he promised her that they would marry after 6months
after she accepted his love, he told the complainant that she
could not marry her because he is already married but was
already separated for almost 16years.
Nieves Barrera seeks the disbarment of Casiano Laput upon the
ground that the respondent as her counsel as the administratrix

relations with her by deception and made her

pregnant, suggested abortion, breached his
promise to marry her and then deserted her
and the child.

The respondent was found guilty of gross

misconduct and accordingly suspended from
the practice of law for 1 year.
The offense in this case is compounded that
by the circumstance that, being a member of
the bar and an officer the court, the offender
shouldve set an examples a man of peace
and a champion of the rule of law and worse
that the offender offended the very person
whom he pledged to defend and to protect
his client

7. SANTOS vs ATTY LLAMAS

8. GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS
TALENT POOL INC vs ATTY
NALDOZA

of the estate of his late husband had misappropriated several

sums of money and tried to appropriate 2 parcels of land
belonging to the same and threatened the complainant into
signing several documents with a gun, despite the fact that she is
already 72 years old.
The respondent admitted that he and the complainant had an
atty-ct relationship but denied the main allegations and that he
alleged that it was only a scheme to beat off his claim for
attorneys fees in the said special proceeding.
The respondent showed the complainant several pleadings
requiring her signature.
The complainant refused to sign it and told him to leave the said
pleadings in order that she may ask somebody first to translate it
for her.
The complainant became angry and at the same time drawing his
revolver and placing it on his lap in order to threaten the
complainant into signing the papers and she did against her will.

Before the court is an administrative complaint for disbarment

filed by Elpidio Tiong against Atty. George Florendo for gross
immorality and grave misconduct.
Elpidion Tiong and his wife are real estate lessors in Baguio they
are also engaged in the assembly nd repair of motor vehicles in
Pangasinan.
They engaged in the services of Atty. Florendo not only as their
legal counsel but also their business administrator whenever the
respondent would leave to the USA.
The complainant began to suspect that the respondent and his
wife were having an illicit affair and his suspicion was confirmed
in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when in their residence he
chanced upon a telephone conversation between the two.
She confronted his wife and she denied but she broke down and
eventually confessed to their love affair which began on 1993.
The respondent likewise admitted.
The respondent initiated a meeting with their spouses and
admitted to their illicit relationship.
They met again and they signed an affidavit attesting to their
illicit affair and seeked forgiveness from their spouses.

Violation of CANON1 and rule 1.01 and

CANON 7 and rule 7.03
Failure to maintain good moral character
Respondents act of having an illicit affair with
his client manifested disrespect for the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow
of fidelity.
Respondent is guilty of gross immorality and
is suspended from the practice of law for 6
months effective upon notice with a stern
warning that repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

VIOLATION OF CANON 1, CANON 7, CANON

10 and rule 10.01
Atty Llamas is sus pended from the practice
of law for 1 year or until he paid his IBP dues.

This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar

membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Llamas.

9. FATHER AQUINO vs ATTY

PASCUA

Attorney Naldoza is hereby disbarred and his

name be stricken in the roll of attorneys.

Atty. Pascua was declared guilty of

misconduct and is suspended from the
practice of law for 3 months with a stern
warning that the repetition of similar act be
dealt with more severely. His notarial
commission if still existing, is ordered
revoked.
A notarial document is by law entitiled to full
faith and credit upon its face. For this reason,
notaries public must observe utmost care to
comply with the formalities of the basic
requirement in the performance of the duties.
Under the notarial law, a notary public must
enter in such chronological order, the nature
of each instrument executed, sworn to or
acknowledged before him, the person
executing, sweIaring to or acknowledging the
instrument.
Misconduct generally means wrongful,

Atty Llamas indicates IBP Rizal 259060 sometimes, he does not

indicate any PTR for payment of professional tax.
The respondent was dismissed as a Pasay City judge supreme
Court Admin no. 1037-CJ en banc decision on 0ct. 28, 1981,
conviction for estafa
The respondent filed a certification on 1997 to the president of
the IBP that the last payment of his dues was in 1991 since then
he has not paid or remitted any amount to cover his membership
fees up to the present.
On 1997, he was asked to comment on the complaint within 10
days from the receipt of the notice
He continued the use of the same OR no. of the Rizal IBP in 1996,
1996, 1997

10. ISENHARDT vs ATTY REAL

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Naldoza. The complainant

asserts that the respondent should be disbarred for the following
acts:
A. appealing a decision knowing the same was already final and
executor
B. deceitfuly obtaining 2555 US dollars from the complainant,
allegedly for cash bond in the appealed case
C. issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act.
The complainant alleges that the respondent appealed the POEA
decision despite knowing that it had already been final and
executory.
The respondent also collected 2555 dollars and explained that
the amount will cover all the expenses to be incurred in the
petition for review with the Supreme Court and would be paid to
the Supreme Court in connection with the olano case.
In an effort to conceal his misappropriation of the money
entrusted him, respondent gave a photocopy of a receipt
reportedly showing that the supreme court had received the
2,555 dollars from him.

11. LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO

AREVALO JR. REQUESTING
EXEMPTIOM FROM PAYMENT
OF IBP DUES

In his complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified

2 documents committed as follows:
A. he made it appear that he had notarized the affidavit
complaint of one Joseph Arcoda entering the same as doc no.
1213 page no. 243, book 3 series of 1998 dated December 10,
1998
B. He also made it appear that he had notarized the affidavitcomplaint of one Remigio Domingo entering the same as doc
no.1214 page no. 243 book 3 series of 1998, Dted Dec 10, 1998
In his comment he admitted having notarized the two documents
on December 10 1998 but they were not entered into his Notarial
register due to the oversight of his secretary, whose affidavit was
attached to his comment.
The photocopy of his notarial register showed that the last entry
was on December 29, 1998 is doc no 1200 page 240.

Disbarment complaint against Atty Real for allegedly notarizing a

document without the appearance of one of the parties.

Complainant alleged that on September 14 200 a SPA was

supposedly executed by her. The SPA authorizes his brother to
mortgage her real property in Antipolo City.

Complainant averred the she never appeared before him and she
gave a photocopy of her German passport to show them that she
arrived in the Philippines on June 22 200 and left the country on
august 4 2000. The passport further indicated that she arrived
again in the Philippines only on July 1 2001.

The complainan submitted that because of the respondents acts

the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged by the rural bank
of Antipolo City and was foreclosed.

The respondent denied the allegations and he narrated that in

sometime in the middle of 2000, spouses Wilfredo and LOrena
Gusi approached him and seek advice regarding a computer
business they were planning to put up.

improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a

premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose. Does not necessarily imply
corruption or criminal intent.

The respondent violated his oath and the

code of professional responsibility.
The notarial commission of Atty. Real is
revoked and he is disqualified for
reappointment as a notary public for 2 years
and suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 1 year. He is warned that repetition
of similar will be dealt with more severely.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner is entitled

to exemption from payment of his dues

Membership in the IBP is compulsory and it

requires financial support as a condition to
practice law and retention of his name in the
roll of attorneys.

It must be borne in mind that to practice law

is a privilege burdened with conditions, one of
which is to pay membership dues and failure

12. ESPINOSA/ GLINDO vs

OMANA

13. VITUG vs RONGCAL

14. BAYONLA vs REYES

During one of their meetings, the spouses allegedly introduced a

woman by the name Nesa Isenhardt, sister of Wilfredo, as the
financer of their proposed business.
He then notarized the said SPA and maintained that it was signed
in the presence of all the parties.
This is a request for exemption from the payment of the IBP dues
filed by the petitioner Atty. Cecilio Arevalo
In his letter, on Sept 22 2004, petitioner sought exemption from
payment pf IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged
unpaid from 1977-2005.
He alleged that after he passed the bar exam on 1961, he started
working at the Philippine Civil service until 1986, then he
migrated to the USA and worked there until he retired on 2003.
He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the time
he worked here in the Philippines since the law prohibits him to
practice law while working at the civil service and neither can he
be assessed for the years he was working in th USA.
On November 2004, the IBP submitted their cooment: that
membership on the IBP is not based in actual practice of law; a
lawyer continues to be included in the roll of attorneys.
The IBP maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption
of payment of annual dues as requested by respondent that was
is allowed is voluntary termination and reinstatement of
membership.
In his reply(petitioner): he questioned the IBPs policy on non
exemption regardless of whether or not they are engaged in
active and inactive practice.
He also posits that collection of the IBP dues would be oppressive
to him since he has been in an inactive status and is without
income derived from his practice of law.
He adds that his removal due to non payment would constitute
deprivation of property right without due process of law.

Omana is charged with violation of her oath as a lawyer,

malpractice and gross misconduct in office.

Espinosa and her wife Marantal sought advice from Atty. Mona

to abide entails loss of such privilege.

Petitioners request is DENIED. He is ordered
to pay 12,035.00 within a non extended
period of 10 days from the receipt of this
decision. Failure to do so will merit his
suspension to practice law.

Issue: Whether Omana violated the Code of

professional responsibility.

The IBP-CBD found that Omana violated Rule

1.01, Canon 1 of the code of professional
responsibility.

The IBP stated that Omana failed to exercise

due negligence in the performance of her
notary public and to comply with the reqts of
law.

They also noted the inconsistencies that she

claimed that it was her part time office staff
who notarized it then said that it was her
maid.

The court ruled that extrajudicial dissolution

of the conjugal partnership without judicial
approval is void. The court also ruled that a
notary public should not facilitate
disintegration of marriage.
Atty. Omana is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one year and Revoke Atty.

whether they could legally live separately and dissolve their

marriage. Omana the prepared a document entitled Kasunduan
ng paghihiwalay
Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced
of the validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, they
started implementing the terms and conditions. However,
Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of
most of the property they acquired during their marriage
Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, Glindo, a law
graduate who informed him that the contract executed by Omana
was not valid. They then hired a lawyer to file a comlaint against
Omana before the IBP-CBD.
She admitted that she knew Glindo but does not personally
knows Espinosa and denied that she prepared the contract. But
admitted that he went to see her asked her to notarize the said
document but she told him that it was illegal.
She further alleged that while she was out of the office, Espinosa
returned the next day and was able to persuade her part time
office staff into notarizing the contract and the staff forged her
signature.

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment for gross

dishonesty, deceit, conversion, breach of trust filed against Atty.
Purita Reyes by Teresita Byonla, her client.
Paz Durban and Petra Durban were sisters who had jointly owned
a parcel of land situated in Butuan City. They died without ling a
will. Their land was expropriated in connection with the
construction of the Bacansi airport. An expropriation
compensation amounting to P 2, 453, 429 was to be paid to their
heirs. Bayonla and her uncle.
Bayonla and his uncle engaged in the legal services of Atty. Reyes
to collect their expropriation shate in the air tanposrtation office,
CDO. Agreeing to her attys fees of 10% whatever amount she
collected.
On Nov 1993 she collected 1M from the ATO; that Bayonlas share
after deducting her Attys fees would be P75,000 but Atty. Reyes

Omanas notarial commission, if still existing

and SUSPEND her as a notary public for 2
years.

Violation of CANON 16
Based on the records: first release P84,852
then secon release P121,119.11. her total
share from the two releases was P205,971
with AttyReyes being entitled of 40% attys
fees. The net share of Bayonla was
P121852.67 but Atty. Reyes only delivered to
her only P79,000 which was short of P44,852
despite the demands and the order from the
IBP.
The pendency of other cases does not halt
them from submitting an accounting and the
amount due to Bayonla.
Denial of due process
The court orders Atty. Reyes to pay
complainant Teresita Bayonla within 30 days
from yhe receipt of this decision the amount
P44,852 ith interest of 12% per annum from
June 22, 1997 and to complete written
accounting and inventory.
SUSUPENDS her from the practice of law for a
period of two years effective from the receipt
of this decision and a warning that a similar
offens would be dealt with mmore severely.

only delivered P23,000 and had failed to deliver the balance

52,000 even with repeated demands.
On June 1995, Atty. Reyes collected P121,119.11 from the ATO
and that Bayonlass share after deduction of fees was
P109,007.20 but Atty Reyes only heanded her P56,500 and he
failed to deliver the balance; and that Atty Reyes shoud be
dibared for depriving her of her share.
Respondents comment: she admitted that Bayonla and Alfredo
engaged in her legal services for the purpose of collecting their
share; that as consideration for her serices, they agreed upon a
40% contingent fee for her.
That she had given to Bayonla morethan what had been due her;
that Alfredo had received the check from ATO for the scond
release corresponding to the share of Bayonla and Alfredo; that
she had received only her contigent fee in the second release.;
that she had incurred the travel expenses in collecting such share
amd that she could be absolved from the liability arising from the
complaint.
The parties were required to submit documents relative to their
defenses especially the amount released by ATO. Ony the
respondent submitted.
It could be inferred that the complainant was supposed to receive
P205,971.11 as her share.
Inasmuch as the attys fees of 40% was supported by evidence
instead of complainants allegation of 10% then the respondent
was entitled P82,388.45 as atttys fees;leaving the balance
123,582 to the complainant.