PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES, complainant, vs. JUSTICE ONOFRE A.

VILLALUZ
(Retired), respondent.
[A.C. No. 4431. June 19, 1997]

FACTS:

Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay City
while respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult
at the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.

Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She
obtained a decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16
years. Thus, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding on January 7, 1994 before
Judge MyrnaLim Verano, despite the former marriage in court.

Few days after the marriage, De Mijares and Villaluz had a heated fight which led to
exchange of offending remarks. Villaluz called the complainant a nagger and told her
to get the marriage contract and have it burned. Such unbearable utterances of
respondent left complainant no choice but to leave in haste the place of their would-be
honeymoon. Since then, the complainant and respondent have been living separately
because as complainant rationalized, contrary to her expectation respondent never got
in touch with her and did not even bother to apologize for what happened. Several
months after, she learned that respondent married a certain Lydia Geraldez. Thus, the
basis of the complaint of gross immorality and grave misconduct.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Retired Justice Onofre A. Villaluz be suspended from his practice of law.

HELD:

Citing Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court found the
respondent engaging in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceiful conduct and
recommends SUSPENSION with the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall
be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.
SOCORRO T. CO, vs. ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO
A.C. No. 3919 January 28, 1998

Facts:

Socorro Co (complainant) alleged that she was following up the documents for her
shipment at the Bureau of Customs, she was approached by respondent, Atty.
Godofredo N. Bernardino (respondent), introducing himself as someone holding various
positions in the Bureau of Customs such as Executive Assistant at the NAIA, Hearing Officer
at the Law Division, and OIC of the Security Warehouse. Respondent offered to help
Socorro Co and promised to give her some business at the Bureau. In no time, they
became friends and a month after, or in November of the same year, Atty. Bernadino
succeeded in borrowing from complainant P120,000.00 with the promise to pay the
amount in full the following month, broadly hinting that he could use his influence at the
Bureau of Customs to assist her. To ensure payment of his obligation, respondent issued
to complainant several postdated Boston Bank checks. However, the checks covering
the total amount were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and closure of account.

Respondent told complainant that he would be able to pay her if she would lend him an
additional amount of P75,000.00 to be paid a month after to be secured by a chattel
mortgage on his Datsun car. The agreement was not consummated as respondent later
sold the same car to another.

Despite several chances given him to settle his obligation respondent chose to evade
complainant altogether so that she was constrained to write him a final demand letter,
2preceding the filing of several criminal complaints against him for violation of BP Blg. 22.

By way of defense, respondent averred that he gave the checks to complainant Co by

way of rediscounting and that these were fully paid when he delivered five cellular
phones to her.

Issue:

Whether or not a lawyer may be sanctioned for misconduct in his private capacity?

Held:

Finally, reference is made to Rule 1.01, Chapter 1, entitled The Lawyer and Society of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this Rule, is not
limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of professional duties.

In the case at bar, it is glaringly clear that the procurement of personal loans through
insinuations of his power as an influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs, the issuance
of a series of bad checks and the taking undue advantage of his position in the aforesaid
government office constitute conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.