“x x x [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him to the obligation that he will not
A.C. No. 5148. July 1, 2003.*
ATTY. RAMON P. REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG, JR., respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.—Lawyers
are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the
bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they
must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 or the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.”
Same; Same; Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity
and civility; Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and
demeanor toward each other.—Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with
courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends
upon their relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must
treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations
and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also
constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
Same; Same; Law practitioners exhorted by the Lawyer’s Oath not to wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.—Furthermore, the
Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to “wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.”
Same; Same; While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not
permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.—Respondent claims that it was his client
who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable.
While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation
of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just
condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their
clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reyes, Cruz & Santos Law Offices for complainant.
Ong, Saavedra, Chiong Law Offices for respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility of their
clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals and members of the
bar.
214
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr
The Case
Before us is a Sworn Complaint1 filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this
Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong, Jr. for violation of his lawyer’s oath and of
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. After the Third Division of this Court referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline resolved to suspend
him as follows:
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same. In addition, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884,
when it was apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as
well as the above-quoted Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.”2
The Facts
In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged by one
Zonggi Xu,3 a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu-
based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another
Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the latter had not
established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary
for the former to seek legal assistance.
Xu, through herein complainant, filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by
respondent. The Complaint, docketed as IS 98J-51990, was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor
Pedro B. Salanga, who then issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation on October
27 and 29, 1998.
The latter neither appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit.
Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed a Criminal Complaint4 for estafa against him before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila.5 On April 8, 1999, the Manila RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest6 against Pan.
Thereafter, respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest.7 He also filed with the
RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for
the dissolution of a business venture against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
When confronted by complainant, respondent explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute
the civil action against Atty. Reyes. Respondent claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil
case, if complainant would move for the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to
reach a settlement.
In his Comment8 dated January 27, 2000, respondent argued that he had shown no disrespect in
impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil Case No. 4884. He claimed that there was no basis to
conclude that the suit was groundless, and that it had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He alleged
that Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter
had committed in conducting the criminal investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had resolved to
file the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit Counter-Affidavits
and Evidence,9 of the appeal10 to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to Defer/Suspend Proceedings.11
On the other hand, complainant was impleaded, because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in
filing the estafa case, which the former knew fully well was baseless. According to respondent, the
irregularities committed by Prosecutor Salanga in the criminal investigation and complainant’s connivance
therein were discovered only after the institution of the collection suit.
The Third Division of this Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.12Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed its June 29, 2002 Resolution.13
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In her Report and Recommendation,14 Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the case was assigned
by the IBP for investigation and report, averred that complainant and Prosecutor Salanga had been
impleaded in Civil Case No. 4884 on the sole basis of the Criminal Complaint for estafa they had filed
against respondent’s client. In his Comment, respondent himself claimed that “the reason x x x was x x x
the irregularities of the criminal investigation/connivance and consequent damages.”
Commissioner San Juan maintained that the collection suit with damages had been filed purposely to
obtain leverage against the estafa case, in which respondent’s client was the defendant. There was no
need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salanga, since they had never participated in the business
transactions between Pan and Xu. Improper and highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor
and complainant in the civil case instituted by respondent on the alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of
suit was filed to harass complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.18
Commissioner San Juan held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A
complainant in Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their
Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust
for his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years. and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and
demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among
lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession,19 but also constitute highly unprofessional
This Court’s Ruling
conduct subject to disciplinary action.
We agree with the IBP’s recommendation.
Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to “wittingly or willingly promote or
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same.”
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a
Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor
consequence.15 Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the
Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of
dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 or
their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.20Their
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
rendition of improper service invites stern and just condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice
counsel.”
that meets the strictest principles of moral law.21
Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the “collection of
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their professional brethren.
a sum of money, damages and dissolution of an unregistered business venture.” It had originally been filed
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gamed by artifice or contrivance. It is born of
against Spouses Xu, but was later modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
sharp contests and thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains
The Amended and Supplemental Complaints16 alleged the following:
and skill in the honorable performance of professional duty.22
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from
“27.The investigating prosecutor defendant Pedro Salanga knowingly and deliberately refused and the practice of law, effective immediately.
failed to perform his duty enjoined by the law and the Constitution to afford plaintiff Chia Hsien SO ORDERED.
Pan due process by violating his rights under the Rules on preliminary investigations; he also falsely
made a Certification under oath that preliminary investigation was duly conducted and plaintiff
[was] duly informed of the charges against him but did not answer; he maliciously and x x x partially
ruled that there was probable cause and filed a Criminal Information for estafa against plaintiff
Chia Hsien Pan, knowing fully [well] that the proceedings were fatally defective and null and void;
x x x;

“28.Said assistant prosecutor, knowing also that plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan filed said appeal and
motion to defer for the valid grounds stated therein deliberately refused to correct his errors and
consented to the arrest of said plaintiff under an invalid information and warrant of arrest.

“29.Defendant Atty. Ramon Reyes, knowing that the suit of defendant Zongoi Xu is baseless
connived with the latter to harass and extort money from plaintiff Chia Hsien Pan by said criminal
prosecution in the manner contrary to law, morals and public policy, resulting to the arrest of said
plaintiff and causing plaintiffs grave irreparable damages[.]”17

We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper
remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage against
the estafa case. If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s resolution, they should
have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies. Respondent could have gone to the justice
secretary and filed a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion for Reinvestigation of Prosecutor Salanga’s
decision to file an information for estafa.
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the estafa case was
filed without basis. Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against complainant and
Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer, respondent
should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had no
justification.
The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction subject of
the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that
respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the
 A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010.*
ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., complainant, vs.ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal proficiency and morality; Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands
all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.—The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who
meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides: 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 this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon
the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with
pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored
the same.
Same; Same; The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of
judicial forum.—Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it 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. Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of
public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his
indignation.
Same; Same; Due Process; The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity
to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.—Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s
allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. The essence of due process is to be
found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of
one’s defense. So long as the parties are given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of
due process are satisfactorily complied with. Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer
all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment, Suspension from Practice of Law or Imposition
of Appropriate Disciplinary Action.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
ABAD, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon another
lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him.
The Facts and the Case
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit1 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 action against respondent
Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for the following offenses:
1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case 7040, filed a reply
with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive, and improper language
which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged
falsification of public document when the document allegedly falsified was a notarized document
executed on February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer nor was
assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a signatory to the document.
3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before
the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, “Laban kung
laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na
abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo
sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.”
4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document without bothering
to check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed
to consider that a notarized document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven
otherwise.
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his
unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of
the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal
cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him. In October 2000, Atty.
Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with the
Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, Department of Justice. When Atty. Barandon
declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory language. Atty. Ferrer raised
the following defenses in his answer with motion to dismiss:
1. Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for examination, Atty.
Barandon filed charges of libel and grave threats against him. These charges came about because
Atty. Ferrer’s clients filed a case for falsification of public document against Atty. Barandon.
2. The offended party in the falsification case, Imelda Palatolon, vouchsafed that her
thumbmark in the waiver document had been falsified.
3. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks against Atty.
Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in session. It was improbable that the court did not take
steps to stop, admonish, or cite Atty. Ferrer in direct contempt for his behavior.
4. Atty. Barandon presented no evidence in support of his allegations that Atty. Ferrer was
drunk on December 19, 2000 and that he degraded the law profession. The latter had received
various citations that speak well of his character.
5. The cases of libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against Atty. Ferrer were
still pending. Their mere filing did not make the latter guilty of the charges. Atty. Barandon was
forum shopping when he filed this disbarment case since it referred to the same libel and grave
threats subject of the criminal cases.
In his reply affidavit,2 Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for disbarment. He alleged that on
December 29, 2000 at about 1:30 p.m., while Atty. Ferrer was on board his son’s taxi, it figured in a collision
with a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycle’s passengers.3 But neither Atty. Ferrer nor any of
his co-passengers helped the victims and, during the police investigation, he denied knowing the taxi driver
and blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from reporting
the accident to the authorities.4
Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had already been dismissed. He belittled
the citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly received. On the contrary, in its Resolution 00-1,5 the IBP-Camarines
Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as judge of the MTC of Mercedes, Camarines Sur, on the
ground that he did not have “the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry and character of a trial
judge” and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of lasciviousness and a disbarment case filed by
an employee of the same IBP chapter.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to
this Court 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. He 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.
On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XV-2002-225,6 adopting and
approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to
only one year.
Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in its Resolution7 of October
19, 2002 on the ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5,
2003, however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of Atty. Ferrer’s motion for
reconsideration.8 On May 22, 2008 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Atty. Ferrer said, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na
Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner that denied Atty. Ferrer’s motion for palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi
reconsideration.10 na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.” Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy,
On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of Governors’ IBP Notice of Resolution humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and
No. XVIII-2008.11 On August 12, 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty. Ferrer’s comment as a petition for litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the legal
review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Barandon filed his comment,12 reiterating his profession. The Court cannot countenance it.
arguments before the IBP. Further, he presented certified copies of orders issued by courts in Camarines Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer against appearing in court drunk.13 respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind
The Issues Presented ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.17 Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort
The issues presented in this case are: of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public
1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express
finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and his indignation.
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified. Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. The
essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence
The Court’s Ruling one may have in support of one’s defense.18 So long as the parties are given the opportunity to explain
their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.19 Here, the IBP Investigating
Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the
We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the findings and
allegations of Atty. Barandon.
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and
and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.14
fairly.20 Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a
courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing
patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD
Rule 8.01.—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
Case 01-809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one year
offensive or otherwise improper.
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Ferrer’s personal record as an attorney with the Office
Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this
of the Bar Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the IBP and to the Office of the Court
imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty.
Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.
Barandon authored the same.
SO ORDERED.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using
offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. To quote portions of what he said in his reply with
motion to dismiss:
“1. That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable misrepresentation and “FALSIFICATION” of
documents, committed to mislead this Honorable Court, but with concomitant grave responsibility of
counsel for Defendants, for distortion and serious misrepresentation to the court, for presenting a
grossly “FALSIFIED” document, in violation of his oath of office as a government employee and as
member of the Bar, for the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has never executed the
“SALAYSAY AFFIDAVIT”, wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in view whereof, hereby DENY the
same including the affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or information to form a belief as to
the truth of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all lies and mere fabrications, sufficient
ground for “DISBARMENT” of the one responsible for said falsification and distortions.”15
The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the
adversarial nature of our legal system.16
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins
lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code
provides:
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.
Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly
before the start of a court hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present convincing evidence to support his denial
of this particular charge. He merely presented a certification from the police that its blotter for the day did
not report the threat he supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police blotter on a
subsequent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Ferrer.

A.C. No. 6396. October 25, 2005.*
ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO, respondent.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Legal Ethics; By constantly checking the transmittal of the records
of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record
of that case.— Respondent’s explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records
were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being
no authorization from either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on
the clerk of court. Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall
not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is
the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the
records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel
of record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
Same; Same; Same; In the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784,
respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming
considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.—In the course of his
questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the
court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only
was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her
subordinates. As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have realized that this sort of
public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01.
Same; Same; Same; Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.—Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times.
Same; Same; Same; The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their
brethren.—The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This
esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp
contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and
skills in the honorable performance of professional duty.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Unprofessional Conduct.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court. Members of the bar
decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner befitting their noble profession.
Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. On 8 May 2003, she filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Complaint-Affidavit1 with supporting documents2 against
respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03,
Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.3 The charge in the complaint is summed
up as follows:
Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter.
On 5 May 2003, respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil
Case No. 784, entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S. Castillano and Felicidad Aberin, had
already been remanded to the court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva Vizcaya.
It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case No. 784.
Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal
of the records to the court of origin. To this respondent retorted scornfully, “Who will certify the Court of
Appeals’ Decision, the Court of Appeals? You mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a
certified true copy?” Surprised at this outburst, complainant replied, “Sir, it’s in the Rules but you could
show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be representing.” Respondent then replied, “Then you
should have notified me of the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting
your office since then, but you never bothered to notify me.” Complainant replied, “It is not our duty, Sir,
to notify you of the said requirement.”
Respondent then answered, “You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record of the case?”
Complainant responded, “No, Sir, I mean, it’s not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of
the Court of Appeals’ decision.” Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano, “Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan
pakialam yon? Kasdiay?” (“You mean to say you don’t care anymore? Is that the way it is?”) He then turned
and left the office, banging the door on his way out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud
it was heard by the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place.4
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at
complainant and shouted, “Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak
ah!” (“Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, don’t turn your ire on me!”)
Complainant was shocked at respondent’s words but still managed to reply, “I don’t even know your client,
Sir.” Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainant’s window, he again shouted, “Ukinnam
nga babai!” (“Vulva of your mother, you woman!”)5
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of which she
was, and still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and
diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff.6
The Complaint-Affidavit, filed three days after the incident, was supported by an Affidavit7 signed by
employees of RTC-Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya who witnessed the incident. The Affidavit narrated the same
incident as witnessed by the said employees. A Motion to File Additional Affidavit/Documentary
Evidence was filed by complainant on 25 September 2003.8
On 26 May 2003, the CBD-IBP issued an Order9 requiring respondent to submit his answer to the
complaint. Respondent submitted his Compliance10 dated 18 June 2003. Respondent explained that he
was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 847, entitled Sps. Federico Castillano, et al. v. Sps. Crispin
Castillano, et al., filed with the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30. He learned of the finality of the decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 64962 with respect to Civil Case No. 847 before the lower court.
Prior to the incident, he went to the office of the complainant to request for the transmittal of the records
of the case to the MCTC and the complainant reassured him of the same.
Respondent admits having inquired about the status of the transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003.
However, he has no explanation as to what transpired on that day. Instead, he narrates that on 25 May
2003, twelve days after the incident, the records had not yet been transmitted, and he subsequently
learned that these records were returned to the court of origin.
The hearing for the administrative complaint before the CBD was set on 25 September 2003 by the
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan. However, on said date, only complainant appeared. The
latter also moved that the case be submitted for resolution.11 Respondent later on filed
a Manifestation stating that the reason for his non-appearance was because he was still recuperating from
physical injuries and that he was not mentally fit to prepare the required pleadings as his vehicle was
rained with bullets on 19 August 2003. He also expressed his public apology to the complainant in the
same Manifestation.12
Complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next hearing date in
view of respondent’s public apology, adding that respondent personally and humbly asked for forgiveness
which she accepted.13
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that any
other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely.14 The IBP submitted
to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.15
 At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784.
Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to present the required certified true copy
of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy
of the decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate
original or certified true copy of its decision.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were already
transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization
from either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 8.02—A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent
deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case. It does not matter
whether he did so in good faith.
Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted
rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the most
vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did all these to
a woman and in front of her subordinates.
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco,16 respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for
it.17 These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01, to wit:
Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, now
shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Canon 8—A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01—A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the
dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and
otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.18
As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not categorically deny the
charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case as well as
of the incident on 5 May 2003.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit that respondent’s uncharacteristic behavior was
not an isolated incident. He has supposedly done the same to Attys. Abraham Johnny G. Asuncion and
Temmy Lambino, the latter having filed a case against respondent pending before this Court.19We,
however, cannot acknowledge such allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity of such claim. No
affidavits to that effect were submitted by either Atty. Asuncion or Atty. Lambino. Nonetheless, the
penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had apologized to the
complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved
from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if
they repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot
be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem
cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts
and thrives despite conflicting interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the
honorable performance of professional duty.20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND
(P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any similar infraction with be dealt with more severely. Let a copy
of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.

Adm. Case No. 5398. December 3, 2002.*
ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility; Use of Improper and Offensive
Language; The Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.—Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their
fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at
all times.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Bar.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using
improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
Attorney’s Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was
conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a
woman approached them. Complainant saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group and
suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. At this
point, respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani
and his client, saying, “Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para mahibal-an na anang
sala.” (“Why do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.”)
Complainant said he was surprised at respondent Pefianco’s outburst and asked him to cool off, but
respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani. Atty. Salvani tried to explain to respondent that it was
the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of the criminal case could be settled because she was no
longer interested in prosecuting the same. Respondent refused to listen and instead continued to scold
Atty. Salvani and the latter’s client.
As head of the Office, complainant approached respondent and asked him to take it easy and leave
Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at first listened, but shortly after he again started shouting
at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any scene with respondent, complainant went inside his office. He
asked his clerk to put a notice outside prohibiting anyone from interfering with any activity in the Public
Attorney’s Office.
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing, but when he came back he heard
respondent Pefianco saying: “Nagsiling si Atty. Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa PAO, buyon
nga klase ka tawo.” (“Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO, what an idiot.”) Then,
upon seeing complainant, respondent pointed his finger at him and repeated his statement for the other
people in the office to hear. At this point, according to complainant, he confronted respondent Pefianco
and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had no business there. Complainant said
respondent resented this and started hurling invectives at him. According to complainant, respondent
even took a menacing stance towards him.
This caused a commotion in the office. Atty. Pepin Marfil and Mr. Robert Minguez, the Chief of the
Probation Office, tried to pacify respondent Pefianco. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take
respondent out of the office, but before they could do so, respondent tried to attack complainant and
even shouted at him, “Gago ka!” (“You’re stupid!”) Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off
respondent’s blow and complainant was not harmed.
Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty. Pepin
Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez, Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said that the sight of the crying woman,
whose husband had been murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her defense. He said that
he resented the fact that complainant had ordered an employee, Napoleon Labonete, to put a sign outside
prohibiting “standbys” from hanging round in the Public Attorney’s Office.
Respondent claimed that while talking with Atty. Salvani concerning the woman’s case, complainant,
with his bodyguard, arrived and shouted at him to get out of the Public Attorney’s Office. He claimed that
two security guards also came, and complainant ordered them to take respondent out of the office.
Contrary to complainant’s claims, however, respondent said that it was complainant who moved to punch
him and shout at him, “Gago ka!” (“You’re stupid!”)
Prior to the filing of the present complaint, respondent Pefianco had filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman an administrative and criminal complaint against complainant. However, the complaint was
dismissed by the said office.
The Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondent
committed the acts alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of professional
Responsibility. The Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him
but also to give any explanation for his actions. For this reason, it recommended that respondent be
reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the future.
We find the recommendation of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline to be well taken.
The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked the incident in
question. The affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm complainant’s allegation that respondent
Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him
(complainant).
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility1admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise
conduct themselves without reproach at all times.2
In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the untoward
incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case of the woman had not
or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the
latter insisted on his view about the case.
Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been murdered as
she was pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the money. Be that as it may,
respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to demand that
Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow.
Even when he was being pacified, respondent did not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those who
tried to calm him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went to the
Public Attorney’s Office because they heard the commotion, and two guards at the Hall of Justice, who
had been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal rampage. Respondent ought to have
realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation
and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way
he chose to express his indignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of
P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
 G.R. No. 139281. September 29, 1999.*
SPOUSES ROMUALDO and NORA SUAREZ, petitioners, vs. ARSENIO SALAZAR, et al.,
respondents.
Criminal Law; Contempt; Atty. Filemon A. Manangan who is in reality Andres Culamag is
declared guilty of indirect contempt of the Court.—Considering respondents’ “Motion to
Expunge All Pleadings Filed by Atty. Filemon A. Manangan with Motion to Hold Him in
Contempt of Court and to Dismiss the Petition” and said Atty. Manangan’s admission at the
hearing this morning, September 29, 1999, that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in
the Philippines, and that he is the same “Filemon A. Manangan” who was found by this Court
in G.R. No. 82760 (Filemon Manangan v. Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28)
decided on August 30, 1990, to be in reality Andres Culanag who is not a member of the
Philippine Bar, but despite these facts he has continued to misrepresent himself to be an
attorney-at-law and has appeared as counsel for petitioners in this case, Atty. Filemon A.
Manangan, who is in reality Andres Culanag, is hereby declared guilty of indirect contempt of
this Court.
MOTION to Expunge All Pleadings Filed by Atty. Filemon A. Manangan with Motion to Hold
Him in Contempt of Court and to Dismiss Petition.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
Considering respondents’ “Motion to Expunge All Pleadings Filed by Atty. Filemon A.
Manangan with Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court and to Dismiss the Petition” and
said Atty. Manangan’s admission at the hearing this morning, September 29, 1999, that he is
not a lawyer entitled to practice law in the Philippines, and that he is the same “Filemon A.
Manangan” who was found by this Court in G.R. No. 82760 (Filemon Manangan v. Court of
First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28) decided on August 30, 1990, to be in reality Andres
Culanag who is not a member of the Philippine Bar, but despite these facts he has continued
to misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law and has appeared as counsel for petitioners
in this case, Atty. Filemon A. Manangan, who is in reality Andres Culanag, is hereby declared
guilty of indirect contempt of this Court. Wherefore, he is hereby sentenced to three (3)
months imprisonment to be served at the Headquarters of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Taft Avenue, Manila, until further orders from this Court.
SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000.*
MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D.
BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as
a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.—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.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Violation of the Code of Professional Ethics.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
VITUG, J.:
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics,
specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz.:
“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.”
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. Complainant, the hired counsel of some
expelled students from the AMA Computer College (“AMACC”), in an action for the Issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-
30549 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then
counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his
knowledge, compromise agreements (“Re-Admission Agreements”) with four of his clients in
the aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they
might have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, 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 not one of his co-respondents
had taken part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various
ReAdmission 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. The students, namely, Ian Dexter Marquez, Almira O. Basalo, Neil Jason R. Salcedo,
Melissa F. Domondon, Melyda B. De Leon, Leila D. Joven, Signorelli A. Santiago, Michael “1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
Ejercito, and Cleo B. Villareiz, were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE, who parents/guardian already executed a Re-Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
apparently had caused to be published some objectionable features or articles in the paper. AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
The 3-member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convened, and after a series of MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and agreed among others to terminate all civil, criminal
hearings, it found the students guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of and administrative proceedings which they may have against the AMACC arising from their
the student publication funds. The body recommended the penalty of expulsion against the previous dismissal.
erring students. “x x x x x x x x x
The denial of the appeal made by the students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC “3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
President, gave rise to the commencement of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 on 14th March 1997 Q-97-30549 will be filed them.”
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City. While the civil case was still The Court can only thus concur with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of
pending, letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were separately executed by and/or Governors in their findings; nevertheless, the recommended six-month suspension would
in behalf of some of the expelled students, to wit: Letter of Apology, dated 27 May 1997, of appear to be somewhat too harsh a penalty given the circumstances and the explanation of
Neil Jason Salcedo, assisted by his mother, and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 June 1997 with respondent.
the AMACC President; letter of apology, dated 31 March 1997, of Mrs. Veronica B. De Leon for WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from
her daughter Melyda B. De Leon and Re-Admission Agreement of 09 May 1997 with the the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective immediately upon his receipt
AMACC President; letter of apology, dated 22 May 1997, of Leila Joven, assisted by her mother, of this decision. The case against the other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of
and Re-Admission Agreement of 22 May 1997 with the AMACC President; letter of apology, evidence.
dated 22 September 1997, of Cleo Villareiz and Re-Admission Agreement of 10 October 1997 Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney
with the AMACC President; and letter of apology, dated 20 January 1997, of Michael Ejercito, and as a member of the Bar, and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
assisted by his parents, and Re-Admission Agreement of 23 January 1997 with the AMACC Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
President. SO ORDERED.
Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a
Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed with the trial court where the civil case was
pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices for
defendant AMACC. A copy of the manifestation was furnished complainant. In his Resolution,
dated 14 June 1997, Judge Lopez of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court thereupon
dismissed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
On 19 June 1999, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”)
passed Resolution No. XIII-99-163, thus:
“RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex ‘A,’ and, finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with an amendment Atty.
Meinrado Pangulayan is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS for being
remiss in his duty and DISMISSAL of the case against the other Respondents for they did not
take part in the negotiation of the case.”
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.
The allegation that the context of the Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the
administrative aspect of the controversy is belied by the Manifestation1 which, among other
things, explicitly contained the following stipulation; viz.:
 Bar Matter No. 1036. June 10, 2003.*
The Facts
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA, respondent.
Respondent Edwin L. Rana (“respondent”) was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Practice of law means any activity in or out of court which requires
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre (“complainant”) filed against
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience; To engage in the practice of
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.Complainant charged respondent with
law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.—In Cayetano v.
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
Monsod, the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled oath-
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law
taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the Court ruled that
is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice
respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus,
law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to
Same; Same; Having held himself out as “counsel” knowing that he had no authority to practice
now.
law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.—Verily, respondent was
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct.
engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the
pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law.
May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (“MBEC”) of Mandaon, Masbate.
Respondent called himself “counsel” knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held
Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001
himself out as “counsel” knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral
entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of
unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as “counsel for and in behalf of Vice
Same; Same; The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed
Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan,” and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan (“Bunan”).
the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.—The right to
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government
practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral
employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not
character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since
On the charge of grave, misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting
a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by
as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan (“Bunan”) without the latter engaging respondent’s
passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who
services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of
has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
Same; Same; Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to take the lawyer’s oath but
unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.—The regulation of the practice of law
disallowed him from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him. In the same
is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad, a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not taken
resolution, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law even before
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his “specific assistance” to represent him
his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the
before the MBEC. Respondent claims that “he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as
unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.
a person who knows the law.” Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the
Same; Same; It is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-pledged lawyer;
inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a
Fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.—True, respondent here passed the 2000
lawyer or represented himself as an “attorney” in the pleading.
Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent claims that he submitted his
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
resignation on 11 May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He submitted a copy of the
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that
Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon
two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
Relox. Respondent further claims that the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
is the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent
prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Unauthorized Practice of Law, Grave Misconduct, On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondent’s Comment and refuted the claim of
Violation of Law, and Grave Misrepresentation. respondent that his appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to Bunan.
Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao (“Estipona-Hao”) filed a petition for
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this
Percival D. Castillo for complainant. petition. When respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEO, complainant questioned his
Raul Tito A. Estrella for respondent. appearance on two grounds: (1) respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was an
employee of the government.
CARPIO, J.: Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondent’s Comment) reiterating his claim that the instant
administrative case is “motivated mainly by political vendetta.”
On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (“OBC”) for evaluation,
The Case report and recommendation.
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral integrity for membership
OBC’s Report and Recommendation
in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than possession of legal
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001
learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally
elections. The minuses of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively participated in the
unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar examinations.
proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the MBEC proceedings even before he
took the lawyer’s oath on 22 May 2001. The OBC believes that respondent’s misconduct casts a serious one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a
doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also believes that respondent’s license.5
unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of law. The OBC therefore The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,6 a candidate
recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar. passed the bar examinations but had not taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in
On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law which respondent allegedly contempt of court for practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71
violated when he appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a government employee. Respondent of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect
resigned as secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was authorized by Bunan to contempt of court.7
represent him before the MBEC. True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is
the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent
The Court’s Ruling
passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged in the unauthorized
attorney-at-law.8 Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records show that respondent
Attorneys.9
appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. In the
On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that the law does not allow respondent to
pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the
act as counsel for a private client in any court or administrative body since respondent is the secretary of
Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as “counsel for George Bunan.” In the first
the Sangguniang Bayan.
paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the “(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and
Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan prior to the acts
in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN” Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May
complained of as constituting unauthorized practice of law. In his letter dated 11 May 2001 addressed to
2001 that he had “authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him” before the MBEC and
Napoleon Relox, vice-mayor and presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent, stated that he
similar bodies.
was resigning “effective upon your acceptance.”10 Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondent’s resignation
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also “retained” respondent as her counsel.
effective 11 May 2001.11 Thus, the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as counsel
On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that “Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been
for a client while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party.”
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows that Bunan indeed
Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his “appearance as counsel for
authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there
Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC” On 19 May 2001, respondent
was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law.
signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of
WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
SO ORDERED.
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in
the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine Bar.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,1 the Court elucidated that:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigationin court; it embraces the preparation
of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions
and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing. In general,
all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law,incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the
foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings,
and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur.
p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied) x x x
In Cayetano v. Monsod,2 the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.
Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before
the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of
unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself “counsel” knowing fully well that he was not a
member of the Bar. Having held himself out as “counsel” knowing that he had no authority to practice law,
respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.3
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons
of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust4 since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law
simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from

A.C. No. 6317. August 31, 2006.*
LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO, respondent.
Attorneys; Gross Misconduct; The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who
show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it.—The practice
of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess
the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They
must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients,
in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Same; Lawyers shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence
in connection therewith shall render them liable.—Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and are mandated to serve their clients
with competence and diligence. They shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and
this negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable.
Same; The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle
a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.—The duty of a
lawyer to safeguard his client’s interests commences from his retainer until his discharge
from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money
from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity
to the client’s cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees
to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
Same; A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds.—
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court;
and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
Same; When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights.—When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he
will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of
vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client
and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts
and society.
Same; Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his client’s
cause.—A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his client’s case. Once he
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in
this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much
cases as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients’ interests. It is not
enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter; he must also give
adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take
the cudgels for his client’s cause.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Gross Misconduct, Malpractice and
Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him despite receipt of payment representing attorney’s fees.
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in
January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development
Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed
house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and
registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.
Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing
for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise
Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.2
Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he
received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with
Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No. B-2610 pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna.
The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. On September 21, 2005, the Investigating
Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide:
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 9.02—A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons
not licensed to practice law, except:
a)Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
the persons specified in the agreement; or
b)Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
c)Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.
In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner opined that:
“In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the
suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be established by
convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the
exercise by the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act
done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. x x x.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of respondent that the
Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings
account of complainant subsequent acts and events say otherwise, to wit:
1.)The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is
too high;

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
2.)Respondent actively acted as complainant’s lawyer to effectuate the compromise
agreement.
On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed by complainant Luzviminda C.
Lijauco against respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and
 By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to
commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional the legal profession, the courts and society.
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his client’s case. Once he agrees
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring complainant to to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this
participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases
complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property respondent violated as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients’ interests. It is not
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter; he must also give
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”4 adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended: the cudgels for his client’s cause.18
“WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the public In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the practice of law for six months
and the legal profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) is warranted. In addition, he is directed to return to complainant the amount he received by
months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with.”5 way of legal fees pursuant to existing jurisprudence.19
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the investigating commissioner. 6 WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02,
We agree with the findings of the IBP. 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any
continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN, within
all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and
fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts to submit to this Court proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom. Let copies of
and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well as on the
in the Code of Professional Responsibility.7 Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their information and guidance.
Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful SO ORDERED.
conduct8 and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. 9 They shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in connection therewith
shall render them liable.10
Respondent’s claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only to the recovery of complainant’s
savings deposit from Planter’s Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he
acted as complainant’s counsel in the drafting of the compromise agreement between the
latter and the bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent admitted that he explained
the contents of the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature.
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal
assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.11
Respondent’s disregard for his client’s interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations
in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure
of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership
in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it.12 As found by the Investigating
Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to
believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The
duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client’s interests commences from his retainer until his
discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance
of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty
of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. 13
Respondent’s admission14 that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral
fee does not release him from liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee
for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases. 15
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court;
and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a
client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The
failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the
 unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. He makes himself unfit to remain in the
Adm. Case No. 5161. April 14, 2004.*
profession who commits any such unbecoming act or conduct.
ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES, respondent.
Same; Same; Same; Same; False Testimony; A lawyer, in knowingly offering in
evidence a false testimony, may himself be punished as guilty of false testimony.—The
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyer’s Oath; The Lawyer’s Oath, to which all lawyers have
respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony in court, and he
subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere
never corrected the same despite full knowledge of the true facts and circumstances of the
ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift
case. Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he himself may be
and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.—We
punished as guilty of false testimony. Moreover, under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in her findings of facts and conclusion of
Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. He shall “not do
culpability. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit
any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court
to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. In his long years
to be misled by any artifice.” This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the respondent
as a lawyer, he must have forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that
when he permitted Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no siblings aside from Felicisima
the Court inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus: “LAWYER’S OATH: I,
and when he offered such testimony in the petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot
.........................., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
1605.
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
Same; Same; Same; Misconduct; Any act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs and
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give
against him.—The respondent must have forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
court called upon to assist in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
instrument to advance its cause. For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs and
to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. SO HELP ME GOD.” This oath to which all lawyers
against him.
have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a
Same; Same; Same; The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases
mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words,
of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.
court and member of the bar.—In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction
By swearing the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as well as
against an erring lawyer, we take into account the primary purpose of disciplinary
instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice. This oath is firmly echoed and
proceedings, which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who
reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom
Same; Same; Disbarment; Dishonesty; Falsification; Where, instead of advising
courts and clients may repose confidence. While the assessment of what sanction may be
another to secure a written special power of attorney and against committing falsification, a
imposed is primarily addressed to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be
lawyer presented such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a new title for the lot in favor
arbitrary or despotic, nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. Rather, it should ever
of said person and said lawyer’s wife, the lawyer himself may also be held liable for knowingly
be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of
using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant and her other co-heirs.—It also
the bar. Thus, the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of
bears noting that the respondent was consulted regarding the falsification of complainant’s
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
signature in the Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603, which
court and member of the bar. We will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the
contains a purported waiver by the complainant of her right over the property. Marcelina
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. Verily, given the peculiar
admitted that she signed complainant’s name in that document. Such act of counterfeiting
factual circumstances prevailing in this case, we find that respondent’s gross misconduct calls
the complainant’s signature to make it appear that the complainant had participated in the
for the severance of his privilege to practice law for life, and we therefore adopt the penalty
execution of that document is tantamount to falsification of a public document. Instead of
recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.
advising Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney and against committing
falsification, he presented such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a new title for the
lot in favor of Marcelina and his wife. He himself, therefore, may also be held liable for ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Presentation of False Testimony,
knowingly using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant and her other co- Participation in, Consent to, and Failure to Adduce Against, the Forgery of Complainant’s
heirs. Notably, he also admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 that he prepared the legal Signature, and Gross Misrepresentation.
documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice—he
should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in R E S O LU T I O N
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.—Respondent did not advise his wife and
his sisters-in-law from doing acts which are contrary to law. He must have kept in mind the PER CURIAM:
first and foremost duty of a lawyer, which is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. The Code of Professional
In a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed on 22 October 1999 with this Court, complainant Isidra Ting-
Responsibility underscores the primacy of such duty by providing as its canon that a lawyer
Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres with presentation of false testimony;
shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal
participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s
processes. For a lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society
signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in
has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. As such, he should
court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer
make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate. He should not, therefore, engage in
and the canons of legal and judicial ethics.
 The complainant is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente
Ting. Her siblings are Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T. Torres, who is
married to herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo Ting. Their parents died intestate
and left several parcels of land, to wit:
a)One half of Lot 1586 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing an area of
43,908 square meters more or less, and covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6203) RT-
19151 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite;
b)Lot 1603 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing an area of 16,073 square
meters, more or less, and covered at that time by TCT No. (T-6425) RT-7688 of the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite;
c)Lot 1605 of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, containing an area of 22,131 square
meters, more or less and covered at that time by TCT No. T-1869 of the Registry of
Deeds of Cavite.
According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and
her brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if
it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. She attributes to the
respondent the following acts or omissions:
1.The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the perjury
committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 Novem-ber 1986, wherein the two
made it appear that they were the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and
Vicente Ting, knowing fully well that the same was false. He presented that document
to the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the transfer of the title over Lot No. 1586 in the
names of his wife and Miriam. The lot was later sold to Antel Holdings Inc. for
P1,195,400. Payment was already made to, and received by, Felicisima and Miriam.
2.The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the forgery
of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17
March 1995 involving Lot 1603 when he knew that she was in Italy at that time working
as an overseas contract worker. He even presented the falsified document to the Register
of Deeds of Cavite to transfer the title over the property in favor of his wife Felicisima
and sister-in-law Marcelina. The forgery or falsification was made to enable them to sell
Lot 1603 to Antel Holdings, Inc. Payment was received and misappropriated by
Felicisima and Marcelina.
3.In LRC Rec. No. 5964 entitled In Re Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Original
Copy andOwner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-1869 Covering Lot No. 1605 of the
Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed by complainant’s sisters Marcelina and
Felicisima on 24 October 1995, the respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered
false testimony to the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are the only children and
legal heirs of the late spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of
obtaining a new title in their names. With the reconstituted title, and with the express
conformity of the respondent, Felicisima and Marcelina were able to sell Lot 1605 to
Antel Holdings, Inc., for P2,213,100 and profited from the sale to the exclusion of their
other siblings. Partial payment was even received pending the reconstitution
proceedings.
4.On 20 November 1996, the respondent made gross and false misrepresentations for the
purpose of profiting therefrom when he requested the buyer through a certain Mrs. Ong
to release the full payment for Lot 1605 under the pretense that the order of
reconstitution would be released within a month when he knew that it would be
impossible because he presented evidence in the reconstitution case only on 12 August
1997. To facilitate the release of the money, he even used the stationery of the Philippine
National Bank, of which he was an employee.
In his Comment,2 the respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts that he
did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any of the coheirs of his wife of the estate
left by his parents-in-law.
Insofar as Lot 1586 is concerned, the respondent affirms that Felicisima and Miriam were
not motivated by any desire to solely profit from the sale. Neither can he be faulted by the
execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot 1603
because he had no part in the execution of the document. All the while he believed in good
faith that the Ting sisters had already agreed on how to dispose of the said lot. If ever
complainant’s signature was affixed on that document, it was done in good faith.
The respondent admits that he was the counsel of Marcelina Ting Rivera, et al., in LRC
Case No. 5964 for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-1869. The false testimony of Marcelina in
that case that she and Felicisima were the only children of spouses Vicente Ting and Julita
Reynante could not be faulted on him because such was a clear oversight. Moreover, the sale
of Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings, Inc., was the decision of Marcelina and his wife. His conformity
through his signature was pro forma because the property was a paraphernal property of
Marcelina and his wife. Anent his alleged gross and false misrepresentation that the order of
reconstitution would be released by the end of November 1996, suffice it to say that the
assurance was made by the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rosauro Morabe. Besides, petitions for
reconstitution are usually uncontested and granted by courts.
Finally, the respondent believes that complainant intended to harass him in bombarding
him with numerous lawsuits, i.e.,this administrative case; Civil Case No. TM-855 for
“Annulment of Documents, Titles, and Reconveyance plus Damages”; and a criminal case for
Estafa and Falsification of Public Documents.
In her reply, the complainant denies the presence of toka or verbal will allegedly made by
her mother and allegedly implemented by their eldest brother Eliseo in view of the following
circumstances: (1) her mother met a sudden death in 1967; and partition of the properties in
total disregard of their father was morally reprehensible, since the latter was still alive; (2)
when their mother died, four of the siblings were still minors including respondent’s wife
herself; (3) on 5 February 2000, Eliseo wrote his siblings, in response to the previous letter of
Felicisima, Marcelina, and Miriam, denying the existence of a toka. She further states that
the respondent was not merely a passive onlooker but, as he admitted, the administrator of
the properties of the Ting spouses.
On 14 June 2000, this Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation or decision.3
On 9 January 2003, after due hearing and consideration of the issues presented by both
parties, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP found the actuations of the respondent to be violative of Rules 1.01 and
1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus
she recommended that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. 4
In its Resolution No. XV-2003-3335 of 21 June 2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP
approved and adopted Commissioner San Juan’s report, but reduced the penalty to
suspension from the practice of law for six years.
We fully agree with the Investigating Commissioner in her findings of facts and
conclusion of culpability. The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and
legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. In his
long years as a lawyer, he must have forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once
again that the Court inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that pledge; thus:

LAWYER’S OATH
I, .......................... , do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission; I
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
SO HELP ME GOD.
This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves
to the pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten
afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold
and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of
truth and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of
justice.6This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides:
CANON 1—A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02—A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
...
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 should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
...
CANON 10—A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
All of these underscore the role of a lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. When the
respondent took the oath as a member of the legal profession, he made a solemn promise to
so stand by his pledge. In this covenant, respondent miserably failed. The records show that
Felicisima and Miriam stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated 11 November
1986 that they are the children of Julita Reynante and thus adjudicated only between them
Lot No. 1586 to the exclusion of their other siblings.7 There was concealment of the fact that
there were other compulsory heirs to the estate of the deceased. Significantly, the respondent
is the brother-in-law of complainant. Being married to complainant’s sister, he knew of his
wife’s siblings. In fact, he declared that the complainant stayed with them while she was in
the Philippines.8 Yet, the respondent presented that document to the Register of Deeds of
General Trias, Cavite, to effect the transfer of the title of the lot in question in the name of
his wife and his sister-in-law Miriam.
It also bears noting that the respondent was consulted9regarding the falsification of
complainant’s signature in the Extrajudicial Settlement10 dated 17 March 1995 involving Lot
1603, which contains a purported waiver by the complainant of her right over the property.
Marcelina admitted that she signed complainant’s name in that document. 11 Such act of
counterfeiting the complainant’s signature to make it appear that the complainant had
participated in the execution of that document is tantamount to falsification of a public
document.12
Instead of advising Marcelina to secure a written special power of attorney and against
committing falsification, he presented13 such document to the Registry of Deeds to secure a
new title for the lot in favor of Marcelina and his wife. 14 He himself, therefore, may also be
held liable for knowingly using a falsified document to the damage of the complainant and
her other co-heirs.15 Notably, he also admitted in an affidavit dated 22 May 1995 that he
prepared the legal documents for the transfer of Lot 1603.16
Respondent did not advise his wife and his sisters-in-law from doing acts which are
contrary to law. He must have kept in mind the first and foremost duty of a lawyer, which is
to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey
the laws of the land. The Code of Professional Responsibility underscores the primacy of such
duty by providing as its canon that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.17 For a lawyer is the servant of the
law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and
the dispensation of justice.18 As such, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to
emulate.19 He should not, therefore, engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct.20 He makes himself unfit to remain in the profession who commits any such
unbecoming act or conduct.21
Respondent’s argument that the non-declaration by his wife and his sister-in-law
Marcelina of the other siblings in LRC Rec. No. 5964 for the reconstitution of title involving
Lot 1605 was a mere oversight does not deserve credence in view of the following
circumstances: First, the petition clearly names only Felicisima and Marcelina as the
petitioners when there were six siblings who were heirs of the unpartitioned lot.22 Second,
during the hearing of said case when the respondent asked Marcelina whether she has
brothers and sisters other than Felicisima, the latter said none. The transcript of that hearing
reads:
ATTY. TORRES:
Q Madame Witness, are you the only child or daughter of the deceased Sps. Vicente Ting,
Jr. and Julita Reynante?
WITNESS:
A No, sir. We are two, Felicisima Torres and I.
Q Do you have other brothers and sisters?
A None, sir.23
The respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving false testimony24 in court, and
he never corrected the same despite full knowledge of the true facts and circumstances of the
case.25 Moreover, in knowingly offering in evidence such false testimony, he himself may be
punished as guilty of false testimony.26
Moreover, under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes
candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. He shall “not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.”27 This Rule was clearly and openly violated by the respondent when he permitted
Marcelina to falsely testify that she had no siblings aside from Felicisima and when he offered
such testimony in the petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot 1605.
The respondent must have forgotten that as an attorney he is an officer of the court called
upon to assist in the administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is an instrument to
advance its cause. For this reason, any act on his part that obstructs and impedes the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against
him.28
It may not be amiss to mention that to further support the reconstitution, he offered in
evidence an Affidavit of Loss, which was executed by Marcelina and notarized by him. During
the hearing of this administrative case, Marcelina admitted that her statement in that
affidavit that the title was in her possession was false, as she was never in possession of the
title29 and would not, therefore, know that the same was lost.
Moreover, in a letter dated 20 November 1996 addressed to a certain Mrs. Ong, the
respondent requested the release of 50% of the remaining balance for the sale of Lot 1605,
relaying to Antel Holdings, Inc., through Mrs. Ong that he was assured by the Clerk of Court
that the order directing the reconstitution of title for Lot 1605 would be released within the
month.30 Respondent’s information was misleading because he presented evidence only on 12
August 1997, or almost a year after he sent the letter. 31 Such act, therefore, shows lack of
candor and honesty on the part of the respondent.
Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring intolerable
dishonor to the legal profession. They constitute gross misconduct for which he may be
disbarred or suspended pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
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 the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an erring lawyer, we take
into account the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall
be competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence.32 While the assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily addressed
to our sound discretion, the sanction should neither be arbitrary or despotic, nor motivated
by personal animosity or prejudice. Rather, it should ever be controlled by the imperative
need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar. 33
Thus, the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct
that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar. We will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. 34 Verily, given the peculiar factual
circumstances prevailing in this case, we find that respondent’s gross misconduct calls for the
severance of his privilege to practice law for life, and we therefore adopt the penalty
recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty
of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in
the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name
is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall
forthwith record it in the personal files of the respondent; all the courts of the Philippines;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate copies thereof to all its
Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the
Philippines.
SO ORDERED.