1

REQUIREMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

1) In the Matter of JAMES JOSEPH HAMM
Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-04-0079-M
211 Ariz 458, 123 p.3d 652, 2005
Petitioners: James Hamm
Petition: To review the recommendation provided by Committee on Character and
Fitness (the Committee) denying the Petitioners application for admission to the State
Bar of Arizona (the Bar).
FACTS:
-

Hamm, the Petitioner, was sentenced to life in prison for one-count of first degree
murder to which he pled guilty. Prior to serving his sentence, Hamm had been
separated from his wife with whom he had a son and had supported himself by
selling and using marijuana, other drugs and drinking alcohol.

The crime for which Hamm was sentenced to life imprisonment is for the murder
of Morley and Well, who were killed by Hamm along with two accomplices,
Garland Wells and Bill Reeser. The three robbed and killed Morley and Well by
shooting them with a gun and leaving their bodies lying in the dessert.

While in prison, Hamm exhibited good conduct and became a model prisoner
which earned him a conditioned parole. Hamm was released after serving nearly
seventeen years in prison. From conditioned parole, Hamm absolutely
discharged on December 2001.

While on parole, Hamm graduated from the Arizona State University College of
Law. In July 1999, Hamm passed the Arizona bar examination and, in 2004, filed
his Character and Fitness Report with the Committee.

In its report, the Committee stated that, in reaching its conclusions, it considered
the following:

Hamms unlawful conduct, which included the commission of two violent

execution style murders and his testimony as to the facts surrounding
the murders

Hamms omissions on his Application and his testimony in explaining his

failure to disclose all required information.

JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR

CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

Hamms neglect of his financial responsibilities and/or violation of a

longstanding child support court order and his testimony as to his failure to
comply with the court order.
Hamms mental or emotional instability impairing his ability to perform the
functions of an attorney including his testimony as to any diagnosis and
treatment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Hamm can be admitted to the Bar.

HELD: No, the Supreme Court decided that Hamm failed to prove his burden that he is
of good moral character on the following grounds:
- Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from past criminal conduct by not accepting
full responsibility for serious criminal misconduct - Staples murder although he
accepted responsibility for the death of Morley.
- Hamm was not completely up-front in his testimony to the murder of which he
claims that he only intended to rob and not to kill. This is contrary to the facts
he accepted the gun and brings it with him in the car, shot Morley without
attempting robbery and shot hit again to ensure he is dead and shot Staples
when he attempted to escape.
- Hamms failure to fulfill his long overdue obligation to support his child who he
was aware existed.
- Hamms failure to disclose the incident involving him and his wife, Donna, when
he submitted his application to the Committee. This incident gave rise to Hamm
being questioned by the law enforcers which should have been reflected by
Hamm in the application Question 25.
- Hamms act of quoting lines from Supreme Courts decision and use the same in
the introduction for his petition.

2) PENTECOSTES VS MARASIGAN
ROLLY PENTECOSTES v. ATTY. HERMENEGILDO
529 SCRA 146 (2007)
The clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits
and public property.
FACTS:
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court North Cotabato, was administratively charged with grave
misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a motorcycle-subject
matter of a criminal case which was placed under his care and custody.
The administrative case against Atty. Hermenegildo stemmed from a sworn affidavit
complaint filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly Pentecostes, the owner of a Kawasaki
motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine National Police of
Mlang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers.
The release order for the motorcycle was issued but Pentecostes refused to receive it
because it was already cannibalized and unserviceable.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC,
Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge Rabang
recommended that the administrative complaint against Atty. Hermenegildo be
dismissed because there was no proof of Pentecostes claim that the vehicle was
cannibalized from the time that it was under Atty. Hermenegildos custody until its
transfer to Philippine National Police (PNP) of Kabacan. The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Hermenegildo is guilty of misconduct
HELD:
It is the duty of the clerk of court to keep safely all records, papers, files, exhibits and
public property committed to his charge.[12] Section D (4), Chapter VII of the
1991Manual For Clerks of Court (now Section E[2], paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter VI of the
2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court) which provides all exhibits used as evidence
and turned over to the court and before the case/s involving such evidence shall have
been terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping of the Clerkof Court.
From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the RTC, Kabacan, Atty.
Hermenegildo was charged with the custody and safekeeping of Pentecostes
motorcycle, and to keep it until the termination of the case, barring circumstances that
would justify its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior authority of the trial court.
The Court said no explanation was offered by Atty. Hermenegildo, however, for
turning over the motorcycle. But whatever the reason was, Atty. Hermenegildo was
mandated to secure prior consultations with and approval of the trial court.
Moreover disconcerting is the fact that the acknowledgment receipt evidencing the
turnover of the motorcycle from the trial court to the Kabacan police station was lost
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

from the records, with nary a lead as to who was responsible for it. These circumstance
are viewed with disfavor as it reflects badly on the safekeeping of court records, a duty
entrusted to Atty. Hermenegildo as clerk of court.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential and ranking
officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the prompt and
proper administration of justice. Their duties include the efficient recording, filing and
management of court records and, as previously pointed out, the safekeeping of
exhibits and public property committed to their charge.

A Privilege
Good Moral Character
3) Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino et al. VS. Atty. Edwin Pascua
FACTS:
Complainants:
In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents
committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of one Joseph B.
Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998,
dated December 10, 1998".
(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of one
Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series
of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR

CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty. Angel Beltran,
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified that none of the above
entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that the last entry therein was
Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998; and that, therefore, he could not
have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998.
Lina M. Garan and other complainants contend that Atty. Pascua's omission was not
due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.
Respondent:
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua admitted
having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but they were not entered
in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli,
whose affidavit was attached to his comment
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct in theperformance of his duties.
HELD:
Atty. Pascua is guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties while Atty. Pascua
claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight of his staff. Whichever
is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial
register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as
a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff.
The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from true.
The photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which he notarized on
December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page 240. On the other hand, the two
affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 are Document Nos.
1213 and 1214, respectively, under Page No. 243, Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the
other complainants are, therefore, correct in maintaining that Atty. Pascua falsely
assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavit-complaints, a clear dishonesty on
his part not only as a Notary Public, but also as a member of the Bar.
This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of inadvertence by
Atty. Pascua is the affidavit of his own secretary which is hardly credible since the latter
cannot be considered a disinterested witness or party.
Noteworthy also is the fact that the questioned affidavit of Acorda (Doc. No. 1213) was
submitted only when Domingo's affidavit (Doc. No. 1214) was withdrawn in the
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

administrative case filed by Atty. Pascua against LinaGaran, et al. with the CSC. This
circumstance lends credence to the submission of herein complainants that Atty.
Pascua ante-dated another affidavit-complaint making it appear as notarized on
December 10, 1998 and entered as Document No. 1213. It may not be sheer
coincidence then that both documents are dated December 10, 1998 and numbered as
1213 and 1214.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
The case defined Misconduct:
"Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[4] The term, however, does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.[5]

4) In Re JBC vs. Judge Quitan

JBC No. 013 | Aug 22, 2007

FACTS:
Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 10, Davao City on May 17, 2003.
Subsequent thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received
confidential information that administrative and criminal charges were filed against
Judge Quitain in his capacity as then Assistant Regional Director, National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM), Regional Office 11, Davao City, as a result of which he
was dismissed from the service per Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 183 dated April
10, 1995.
In Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted to the JBC judge quitan declared that there
were 5 criminal cases filed against him before the Sandiganbayan, all were
dismissed. No Administrative Case was disclosed by Quitan in his PDS

JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR

CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

Deputy Court administrator Christopher Lock requested certifie true copies of the
criminal cases relative to the administrative complaints filed against Quitan,
particularly Adminisrative Order 180 which dismissed Quitan from service.
In a letter dated November 28, 2003, the NAPOLCOM furnished the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) a copy of A.O. No. 183 showing that respondent Judge
was indeed dismissed from the service for Grave Misconduct for falsifying or altering
the amounts reflected in disbursement vouchers in support of his claim for
reimbursement of expenses.
The Administrative order stated that Quitan was dismissed from service with
forfeiture of pay and benefits, this was signed by President Ramos himself.
In a letter dated October 22, 2003 addressed to DCA Lock, Judge Quitain denied
having committed any misrepresentation before the JBC. He alleged that during his
interview, the members thereof only inquired about the status of the criminal cases
filed by the NAPOLCOM before the Sandiganbayan, and not about the
administrative case simultaneously filed against him. He also alleged that he never
received from the Office of the President an official copy of A.O. No. 183 dismissing
him from the service.
The DCA Lock directed Quitan to explain within 10 days from notce why he did not
include in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), which was sworn before a notary public ,
the administrative cases filed against him and the fact that he was dismissed from
service.
The respondent said that during the administrative case by the NAPOLCOM one of
its members suggested to him that he will no longer be persecuted if he tendered his
resignation from the NAPOLCOM.
The Secretary of the DILG accepted the resignation.
Quitan said that he did not disclose the administrative charge because he was of the
honest belief that he had no more pending administrative case by reason of his
resignation.
This did not persuade Administrator Presbitero Velasco and DCA Lock that he
should not be held administratively liable. They submitted a Memorandu, to then
Chief Justice Davide which read:
An examination of the PDS submitted by Quitan with the JBC he concealed
material facts and even committed perjury in having answered yes to question
24, but without disclosing the fact that he was dismissed from government
service.
Question 24: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of or
otherwise imposed a sanction for the violation of any law, decree,
ordinance or regulation by any court, tribunal or any other government
office, agency or instrumentality in the Philippines or in any foreign
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

country or found guilty of an administrative offense or imposed any

administrative sanction?
In the Mindanao Times quitan said: I was dismissed from the NAPOLCOM office
without due process
In the Mindanao Daily Inquirer: Quitan vowed to clear his name.
The OCA recommended that: (1) the instant administrative case against respondent
be docketed as an administrative matter;; and (2) that he be dismissed from the
service with prejudice to his reappointment to any position in the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.
Quitan contended that before he filed his application for RTC Judge with the JBC, he
had no knowledge that he was administratively dismissed from the NAPOLCOM
service as the case was secretly heard and decided.
OCA submitted its Memorandum dated stating therein that it was adopting its earlier
findings contained in its Memorandum. Based on the documents presented, it can
not be denied that at the time Judge Quitain applied as an RTC judge, he had full
knowledge of A.O. No. 183 dismissing him from government service.
ISSUE:
W/N Judge Quitan concealed his Administrative Charges and Dismissal in the PDS
and filed his application with knowledge of those preceedingly mentioned.
HELD:
Judge Quitan did not comply with the requirements that were set by Article VII
Section 7(3) of the constitution.
Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively charged and dismissed
from the service for grave misconduct per A.O. No. 183, 1995 by no less than the
former President of the Philippines
No amount of explanation or justification can erase the fact that Judge Quitan was
dismissed from public service and that he deliberately withheld this information.
Resignation does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed
against him while he was still in service. Netither does his resignation render the
administrative case Moot and Academic.
Judge Quitain was removed from office after investigation and was found guilty of
grave misconduct. His dismissal from the service is a clear proof of his lack of the
required qualifications to be a member of the Bench.

JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR

CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

5) RODOLFO M. BERNARDO vs. ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

Adm. Case No. 2984
August 31, 2007
FACTS:
On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F.
Mejia, of the following administrative offenses:
1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use part of the money entrusted
to him for payment of real estate taxes on property belonging to Bernardo,
2) falsification of certain documents, to wit: (a) a special power of attorney
purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo; (b) a deed of sale; and (c) a deed of
assignment purportedly executed in Bernardos favor
3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a
loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing
said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded.
On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc declared the respondent, Atty. Ismael F.
Mejia, guilty of all the charges against him and imposes on him the penalty of
DISBARMENT.
On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the
practice of law. However, the Supreme Court En Banc denied his petition.
ISSUE:
WON Mejias petition for reinstatement may be granted.
HOLDING: YES
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent
on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or not the Court
decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will
continue to be preserved even with the applicants reentry as a counselor at law. The
applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will
take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior to the disbarment,
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

10

the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct
subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment
and the application for reinstatement.
In this case, fifteen years has passed since Mejias disbarment. Although the Court does
not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact
that Mejia is already 71 years old. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time
during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in
allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of
Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him,
and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience,
and his punishment has lasted long enough.
Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also
knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders.

6) GSIS, vs. HON. VICENTE PACQUING & ATTY. MARIO ANACLETO BAEZ, JR.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1831
February 2, 2007
FACTS:
In 1971, Bengson Commercial Building, Inc. (Bengson) borrowed P4,250,000 from
petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), secured by real estate and
chattel mortgages. When Bengson defaulted in the payment of the amortizations,
petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties and sold them at public
auction where it emerged as the highest bidder.
In 1977, Bengson filed an to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure. The trial court then
declared the foreclosure void and directed petitioner to restore to Bengson the
foreclosed properties, pay damages and costs of suit. Subsequently, Judge Vicente A.
Pacquing directed petitioner to pay Bengson the equivalent value of the foreclosed
properties and P31 million as costs of suit. This order became final on April 24, 1995.
Petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment with the court a quo stating that its
counsel, Atty. Rogelio Terrado, went on AWOL and never informed it of respondent
judges order. This petition, however, was dismissed.
When petitioner failed to return the foreclosed properties, respondent judge issued an
alias writ of execution ordering petitioner to pay Bengson the P31 million costs of suit.
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

11

Pursuant thereto, respondent Atty. Mario Anacleto Baez, acting as sheriff of Branch 26,
executed the writ and levied on petitioners shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation
(SMC) worth P6.2 million. The garnished shares were later sold at public auction with
Bengson as the only bidder.
Petitioner moved to quash the writ on the ground that its funds and properties were
exempt from garnishment, levy and execution under Section 39 of RA
8291. Respondent judge denied the motion stating that only funds and properties that
were necessary to maintain petitioners actuarial solvency, like contributions of GSIS
members, were exempt from garnishment, levy and execution under RA 8291.
Petitioner filed this administrative complaint against Hon. Pacquing for ignorance of the
law, bias and partiality, and for violation of RA 8291. In its complaint, petitioner alleged
that the respondents refused to take cognizance of Section 39, RA 8291. Respondent
judge refused to await an authoritative and definitive resolution of the issues on the
exemption of GSISs funds and properties from execution or the issue of whether GSIS
is entitled to a relief from judgment of his P31 million peso costs of suit.
The Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), it found
nothing in the records to support petitioners accusations against both respondents.
According to the OCA, even assuming that respondent judge erred in interpreting RA
8291, such error did not constitute gross ignorance of the law. It also failed to prove
malice, fraud, dishonesty or bad faith on the part of respondent judge in issuing the
assailed alias writ of execution. On petitioners allegations against respondent Atty.
Baez, the OCA likewise found no reason to hold him liable for failing to defer the
execution of the writ. The OCA then recommended the dismissal of petitioners
complaint against respondents.
ISSUE:
WON the administrative case filed against the respondents shall prosper.
HOLDING: NO
For a judge to be administratively liable for ignorance of the law, the acts complained of
must be gross or patent. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, such acts must not
only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but also motivated by bad faith, fraud,
malice or dishonesty.
We hold that respondent judge was neither biased nor partial against petitioner when he
issued the alias writ of execution. Petitioners assertion that respondent judge
precipitately issued the alias writ is not supported by the records. On the contrary, the
records indicate that the writ was issued more than three years from the finality of the
order directing petitioner to pay Bengson P31 million as costs of suit. Its issuance was
not all tainted with undue haste. In the exercise of his judicial discretion, respondent
judge believed that the issuance of the alias writ had become forthwith a matter of right
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

12

following the finality of said order. The rule is that once a judgment becomes final, the
winning party is entitled to a writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a
courts ministerial duty.
Assuming, that respondent judge erred in issuing the alias writ, his act would still not
merit administrative sanction absent malice or bad faith. Bad faith does not simply
connote poor or flawed judgment; it imports a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity or
conscious doing of a wrong. Moreover, the party who alleges partiality must prove it with
clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner failed in that aspect.
Regarding the accusations against respondent Atty. Baez, the Court finds no basis to
hold him liable for executing the assailed writ at that time. Atty. Baez merely carried out
a ministerial duty. He had no discretion to implement the writ or not.

7) ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, vs. ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA

A.C. No. 6697
July 25, 2006
FACTS:
An administrative case against Atty. de Vera was filed before the State Bar of California.
It arose from an insurance case Atty. de Vera handled involving Julius Willis, III who
figured in an automobile accident in 1986. Atty. de Vera was authorized by the elder
Willis (father of Julius who was given authority by the son to control the case because
the latter was then studying in San Diego California) for the release of the funds in
settlement of the case. Atty. de Vera received a check in settlement of the case which
he then deposited to his personal account.
The Hearing referee in the said administrative case recommended that Atty. de Vera be
suspended from the practice of law for three years. Subsequently, Atty. de Vera
resigned from the California Bar which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court
of California.
Thereafter, Zoilo Antonio Velez filed a complaint for the suspension and/or disbarment
of respondent Atty. Leonard de Vera based on the ground of respondent's alleged
misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered against him by the State
Bar of California. Complainant averred that the respondent, in appropriating for his own
benefit funds due his client, was found to have performed an act constituting moral
turpitude.
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

13

ISSUE:
WON respondent Atty. De Vera committed malpractice.
HOLDING: YES
Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
Moreover, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer
to hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Accordingly, he shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
Consequently, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds or property held by
him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by,
his client. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross
violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law.
In this case, Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's allegation in the latter's
memorandum that he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 intended for his client and that
he deposited said amount in his personal account and not in a separate trust account
and that, finally, he spent the amount for personal purposes. Atty. de Vera insists that
the foregoing facts do not prove that he misappropriated his client's funds as the latter's
father (the elder Willis) gave him authority to use the same. By insisting that he was
authorized by his client's father and attorney-in-fact to use the funds, Atty. de Vera has
impliedly admitted the use of the Willis funds for his own personal use. Absent any proof
that he was authorized by the elder Willlis, his constitutes more than substantial
evidence of malpractice.
Therefore, the Court ordered the suspension of Atty. Leonard de Vera from the practice
of law for TWO (2) YEARS.
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

14

8) CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO MACABATA

A.C. No. 7204
March 7, 2007
FACTS:
The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of gross immorality. It
was alleged that sometime in December 2004, complainant seek for legal advice from
petitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel company. Respondent sent Demand
Letter and sometime in February 2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the
possibility of filing complaint against the travel company because the latter failed to
settle the accounts. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she
is about to step out of the car, respondent held her arm and kissed her on the cheek
and embraced her very tightly.
The two met again to finalize the draft for the complaint and while on their way home
after the said meeting the respondent stopped his car and forcefully held her face and
kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Cynthia succeeded in
resisting his criminal attempt and immediately managed to get out of the car.
Thus she decided to refer the case to another lawyer. Subsequently, she filed this
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Macabata, charging the latter with
Gross Immorality.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral which would warrant the
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
HOLDING: NO
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

15

CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03-- 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.
In Bar Matter No. 1154, good moral character was defined as what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or
the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has four ostensible
purposes, namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of lawyers;
(3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of morality, not only upon
admission to the Bar but all throughout their legal career as lawyers belong to an
exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of
the legal profession and should adhere to the unwaveringly to the highest standard of
morality.
In herein case, the respondent admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on the lips
as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from complainant in his text message.
The Court explained that 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.
Regardless of the fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant, the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the respondent
immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of the respondent after
texting him. Thus the Court held that this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible
which will warrant disbarment or suspension. But the Court reprimanded respondent to
be more prudent and cautious.
Moreover, complainants bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage
of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him,
deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must
establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of
its disciplinary power.
JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR
CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics

16

JONATHAN D. PAGADUAN and RHEA OLAVAR

CASE DIGEST Problem areas in legal Ethics