Anda di halaman 1dari 3

LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008


Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with
violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is
alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent,
Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the unnotated
Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit. In
addition to such, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on
June 30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which
was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management and
Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA). Respondent, on the
other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely given because he allegedly exercised his
duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law
and had complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and that the
complaint was filed simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case against him
in the Ombudsman that did not prosper. However, he did not deny the contention of nonfiling a copy to the Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to
the IBP and the decision of which was affirmed with modification against the respondent and
in favor of the complainant.
Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in Notarial Law and the Ethics of
Legal Profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament?
Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is guilty of professional
misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01nof the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and
provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for
one year and his Notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to
the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he is
perpetually disqualified from reappointments as a Notary Public.

LAWYERS DUTIES TO LEGAL PROFESSION


Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct
Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio
A.C. No. 3319. July 8, 2000. 333 SCRA 35
PONENTE: De Leon
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on the ground of
immorality for
having illicit relations with a married man which resulted in the birth of two children.
Her
defense: She married complainant's husband without knowledge, in good faith, of
his true
marriage status; that she parted ways upon knowledge of such fact. She is also
charged for
disrespect toward the IBP for willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of the
marriage
certificate.
HELD While a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct," there is no
fixed standard
for such conduct. Although circumstances existed which should have irked
Bonifacio's
suspicion, her act cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that
shows
indifference to moral norms of society. Moreover, "a member of the bar must so
behave himself
as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral
standards." Bonifacio's act of immediately distancing herself from complainant's
husband upon
knowledge of his true civil status avoids the alleged moral indifference--that she had
no intention
of flouting the law and the high standards of the legal profession. The complaint is
dismissed but
she is reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of her marriage
certificate.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO COURTS
Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer
In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani
A.C. No. 5307. August 9, 2000
Facts: Atty. Vicente Bayani was the lawyer for the appellant in a criminal case. He failed to
submit his proof of service in his appellant's brief which subsequently caused the inability of the
appellee to file his own brief. The IBP was order to investigate on the matter and despite
repeated notices, Bayani failed to submit the proof of service and his answer to the IBP's query.
Hence, this administrative complaint.

Held: GUILTY. Atty. Bayani's failure to submit proof of service of appellant's brief and his
failure to submit the required comment manifest willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the

Supreme Court, a clear violation of the canons of professional ethics. It appears that Atty. Bayani
has fallen short of the circumspection required of a member of the Bar. A counsel must always
remember that his actions or omissions are binding on his clients. A lawyer owes his client the
exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that representation. Further, lawyers are expected
to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure and anyone who deals with them
has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a
whole-hearted fealty to his client's cause. Having been remiss in his duty to the Court and to the
Bar, Atty. Bayani was suspended from the practice of law for 3 months and until the time he
complies with the Order of the Supreme Court to submit the required proof of service.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai