PART 4

DISBARMENT
I. Verified complaint
- CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. ATTY. DANIEL D. MANGALLAY. A.C. No. 10483.
March 16, 2016
II. Burden of proof
- NELITA S. SALAZAR vs. ATTY. FELINO R. QUIAMBAO. A.C. No. 12401. March 12, 2019

Facts:
 This is a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed by Nelita S. Salazar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and his
professional duty as a notary public.
 Sometime in 2005, she entered into contracts of sale involving two (2) parcels of land located at Sitio
Ulong Tubig, Brgy. Mabuhay, Carmona, Cavite. The sale of the subject lands was witnessed and
assisted by respondent, who represented himself as a notary public.
 On July 6 and 13, 2006, complainant personally gave respondent the amount of ₱170,000.00 as
payment for the processing, transfer of titles, and other related fees, including the professional fees of
respondent.
 The payments were evidenced by Receipts signed by respondent.
 On the same day of July 6, 2006, Urisantos also gave respondent the amount of ₱271,748.35 for
payment of the capital gains tax of the properties so that these can be transferred under
complainant's name.
 After eight (8) years, complainant had not received any document processed by respondent
 Desperate and disappointed with respondent, complainant went to the Registry of Deeds of Cavite to
determine whether the titles of the subject properties were already transferred to her name. To her
dismay, complainant discovered that the subject properties were still registered with the previous
owners.
 On July 22, 2014, complainant sent respondent a Final Demand Letter7 to surrender all the documents
and to return the payments made. However, in spite of several opportunities given to respondent, he
still filed to comply. On September 1, 2014, complainant also sought assistance from the IBP of Imus,
Cavite over the conduct of respondent.
ISSUE:
 W/N Respondent committed malicious breach of his professional duty to notarize the two contracts of
sale within a reasonable period of time
RULLING:
 The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Commission and the recommendations of the IBP Board.
 Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession, and regular payment of membership fees to the IBP
are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. Beyond question, any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes
him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients must repose in him, and
renders him unfit to continue in the exercise of his professional privilege. Both disbarment and
suspension demonstrably operationalize this intent to protect the courts and the public from members
of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession.
 Recent jurisprudence states that the proper evidentiary threshold in disciplinary or disbarment cases
is substantial evidence. It is defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion
 Respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code
o Respondent was given an opportunity to controvert the allegations against him. However, he
neither filed his answer nor attended the mandatory conference of the IBP Commission.
Verily, respondent's acts and omissions violated the Lawyer's Oath because he delayed the
case of his client for a period of eight (8) years without any justifiable reason.
o He also violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code because he received a
substantial amount of money from his client, in the total sum of ₱170,000.00, to facilitate the
transfer of the subject rop9rties. However, he failed to comply with his obligation. Further, he
could not explain where the money went.
o Respondent's acts and omissions further violated Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 of the
Code because he failed to observe his duty to his client.

 Proper penalty
o The Court finds that complainant established with substantial evidence that respondent: (1)
was engaged by complainant, Diaz and Urisantos to facilitate the transfer of the titles of the
subject properties to complainant, which obligation, after eight years, respondent still failed
to comply with; (2) respondent received the amount of ₱170,000.00 from complainant for the
processing, transfer of title, and other related fees, including his professional fees, but he
reneged on his obligation and failed to return the same to complainant; and (3) he received
 the owner's duplicate copy of the two titles, tax declarations, deeds of absolute sale, and
other relevant documents from complainant but failed to process the title or return such
documents to his client. As discussed above, these acts and omissions violate the Lawyer's
Oath, Canons 16, 17, 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03, and 18.03 of the Code.

 Disobedience to the IBP

o The Court finds that respondent disobeyed the orders of the IBP Commission. Even though he
was duly notified, respondent failed to answer the complaint filed against him with the IBP
Commission. He also did not attend the mandatory conference held on June 29, 2015 despite
due notice. Respondent was even given a period of fifteen (15) days o file his position paper
but he did not comply. Respondent's failure to follow the orders of the IBP without justifiable
reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.

Guilty = Quiambao

III. Grounds
(a) Grossly immoral conduct
- Dr. Advincula vs. Atty. Advincula, A.C. No. 9226, June 14, 2016
****Kinaso siya nung asawa niya para ma disbar siya yung kalandian niya nung di pa siya abogado,
ngayon abogado niya siya kinasuhan siya kasi malandi ampopo

FACTS:
 Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and immoral acts; that while Atty.
Advincula was still married to her, he had extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga
(Ms. Gonzaga); that the extra-marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga
Advincula (Alexandria); that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support to their own children,
despite his having sufficient financial resources.
 That siring a child with a woman other than his lawful wife was conduct way below the standards of
morality required of every lawyer;8 that contracting a subsequent marriage while the first marriage
had not been dissolved was also an unlawful conduct;9 that making a false declaration before a notary
public was an unlawful conduct punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and
 that the failure of Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his moral character
to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer.
 Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He asserted that during the subsistence of his marriage with
Dr. Advincula but prior to the birth of their youngest Jose Leandro, their marital relationship had
deteriorated; that they could not agree on various matters
 that despite their separation, he regularly gave financial support to Dr. Advincula and their children;
that during their separation, he got into a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga; and that he did not
contract a second marriage with Ms. Gonzaga.
 Dr. Advincula left for the United States of America (USA) to work as a nurse; that the custody of their
children was not entrusted to him but he agreed to such arrangement to avoid further division of the
family; that during the same period he was also busy with his law studies
 Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their children migrate to the USA but he opposed the proposal
because he would not be able to practice his profession there;23 that Dr. Advincula stated that if he
did not want to join her, then she would just get the children to live with her;24 that when Dr.
Advincula came home for a vacation he was not able to accompany her due to his extremely busy
schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National Bureau of
Investigation;
 that when they finally met arguments flared out, during which she threatened to file a disbarment suit
against him in order to force him to allow her to bring their children to the USA.
 Atty. Advincula prayed that the disbarment case be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Advincula should be disbarred for Gross Immoral conduct because of his illicit affair?
RULING:
 The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for
admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law.
 a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an
honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only
master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The
requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is
concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
 Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of
disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
 corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common
sense of decency.
 Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his siring the child with a
woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct
when he was not yet a lawyer.
 Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance dated February 26, 2013 that he had immediately
accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspending him from the practice of law for two
months as final and executory; that he had then gone on leave from work in the NBI for two months
starting in November and lasting until the end of December, 2012; and that such leave from work
involved refraining from performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the NBI. The manifestation of
compliance is unacceptable.
 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA GUILTY of immorality;
and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of THREE MONTHS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE
HEREOF,

- CENIZA vs. ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR., A.C. No. 8335. April 10, 2019 (see J. Leonen’s
concurring opinion)

FACTS:
 Petitioner and the respondent were married on November 12, 1989 at the Sacred Heart Parish in
Cebu City; that in time they had two children, Marie Agnes (Agnes) and Christopher Chuck;
 That on April 21, 2008, he told her that he would be attending a seminar in Manila, but because
she had some business to attend to in General Santos City, he seemingly agreed to her request to
forego with his trip to Manila
 On May 23, 2008, the complainant went to the Mandaue City Hall where the respondent worked
as a legal officer in order to inquire about his situation. She learned from members of his staff
that they had suspected him of carrying on an extra-marital affair with one Anna Fe Flores Binoya
(Anna).
 The complainant went to the address provided by the staff to verify the information. They were
able to meet Anna's sister who informed them Anna and her second husband, the herein
respondent, had been living together in Aldea Subdivision
 In the evening of said date the complainant and her daughter proceeded to the new address
where they found and confronted the respondent, who simply denied having committed any
wrongdoing.
 On July 9, 2008, the respondent commenced a civil action seeking the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with the complainant, alleging her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family
Code.
 The respondent visited the complainant at work and requested her to agree to the nullification of
their marriage. She refused and instead pleaded with him to avoid displaying his paramour in
public.
 On November 18, 2008, the complainant brought a complaint for immorality against the
respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman
 April 2, 2009, the complainant sent a letter to President Macapagal-Arroyo alleging therein that
her husband had abandoned her and their children in order to live with another woman.
 In due course, the OBC directed the respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
October 26, 2009, the respondent filed his comment, He insisted that Anna was just a business
partner and that he had left the complainant because her behavior had become unbearable.
 August 5, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its decision in OMB-V-A-10-0345-G, in which
it found the respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for having an extramarital affair
with a woman in violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees
 On February 26, 2014, the case was considered closed and terminated for failure of the
complainant to seek a reconsideration or appeal by petition for review.
 On June 4, 2014, however, the complainant transmitted a letter of appeal vis-à-vis the resolution
of February 26, 2014, attaching thereto her motion for reconsideration. Thereupon, the Court
referred the case to the OBC for report and evaluation.
 Upon the recommendation of the OBC, the Court set aside its resolution of February 26, 2014,
and required the respondent to comment on the complainant's motion for reconsideration.
 On February 23, 2016, the Court promulgated a resolution referring the case to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation.
 On March 1, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-889 denying the
motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE
Should the respondent be disciplined for the actions attributed to him by the complainant?
RULING:
 We disagree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors for the dismissal of the
charge of immorality.
 The finding of insufficient evidence against the respondent was unwarranted. He had not even put
forward anything of substance in his defense. He had been content with merely denying the
imputed wrongdoing, but his denial did not disprove the substantial evidence adduced against
him. He had been sufficiently shown to have abandoned his legitimate spouse and family in order
to live with a married woman.
 The findings made by the Office of the Ombudsman in the administrative case brought against
the respondent more than sufficed to show his immorality, thereby showing his failure to live up
to the legal and ethical obligations of a lawyer.
 Complainant also adduced evidence to the effect that facts of marriage appear in the Office of the
City Civil Registrar, Cebu City, between Binoya and a certain Ebrahaim Angeles Yap who were
married on 18 October 2002 at Al Khariah Mosque, San Nicolas, Mambaling, Cebu City. The
corresponding Certificate of Marriage was likewise submitted.
 It is true that complainant was unable to present photograph/s of respondent and Binoya
together. Still, from the foregoing, she has given several pieces of evidence which yield the
unmistakable conclusion that respondent and Binoya are having an illicit affair.
 The Court will not deviate from the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman as fully affirmed by
the CA. The members of the legal profession must conform to the highest standards of morality
because the Code of Professional Responsibility mandated them
 In keeping with the high standards of morality imposed upon every lawyer, the respondent should
have desisted from the illicit relationship with his mistress, and should have avoided the
impression on the part of the public that he was defying the moral standards required of him.
 By his scandalous and highly immoral conduct, therefore, the respondent showed that he did not
possess the requisite good moral character needed for the continued practice of law. He deserves
the extreme penalty of disbarment.
 GUILTY= Respondent
LEONEN OPINION

 If at all, any complaint for immorality should not be entertained except when it is
commenced by its victims. That is, the betrayed spouse, the paramour who has been misled,
or the children who have to live with the parent's scandalous indiscretions.
 Here, the complainants are parties directly affected by respondent's conduct: his wife, backed by
his daughter's testimony. Respondent's office staff in Mandaue City Hall reported his indiscretions
to complainant.14 Complainant had to beg respondent to keep his indiscretions under wraps
when he instituted a complaint for nullity of their marriage, but to no avail.15 Their teenage16
daughter, Marie Agnes Ceniza, herself heard from the paramour's three (3) aunts that her father
was the paramour's "new husband."17 All these demonstrate respondent's callousness, utter lack
of consideration, and his sheer indifference to public opinion. This is immoral conduct that is "so
depraved as to reduce the public's confidence in the [r]ule of [l]aw."
 Furthermore, respondent's children wrote letters pleading for his affection. One (1) of them
attempted suicide due to depression over their family's suffering.19 Yet, despite the pain he has
caused his own family, respondent exhibited no remorse and insisted his innocence through
merely unsubstantiated denials.
The highest penalty should be reserved for those who commit indiscretions that (a) are repeated,
(b) result in permanent rearrangements that cause extraordinary difficulties on existing legitimate
relationships, or (c) are prima facie shown to have violated the law. The negligence or utter lack
of callousness of spouses who commit indiscretions as shown by their inability to ask for
forgiveness, their concealment of the act from their legitimate relationships, or their lack of
support for the children born out of wedlock should be aggravating and considered for the penalty
to be imposed.20 (Emphasis in the original)
 The findings show that not only is there a prima facie evidence that respondent violated the law;
the Office of the Ombudsman, based on the same facts, also convicted him for violating Republic
Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and for
committing disgraceful and immoral conduct.
 Respondent's lack of empathy and compassion is palpable. He has displayed no iota of human
understanding especially for those he should have loved and protected. I see no redeeming
character that will convince me that he deserves to be a lawyer who can do justice.
 Respondent is unfit to be a member of the bar. He must be disbarred from the practice of law.

(b) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

- MERCURIA D. SO vs. MA. LUCILLE P. LEE. B.M. No. 3288. April 10, 2019
FACTS:
  On May 19, 2017, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Mercuria D. So (So)
alleging that Lee is a defendant in Civil Case No. 740 and is not fit for admission to the Bar
considering her irresponsible attitude towards her monetary obligations. Attached in the said
letter was a copy of the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money. So had filed against Lee.
 Lee claimed that she was unaware of the pendency of Civil Case No. 740 as she learned of it only
when she registered for the oath taking.
 She admitted that she obtained a P200,000.00 loan from So but had already paid a total of
P140,000.00 for 10 months. Lee explained that due to the losses her business suffered, she failed
to pay the subsequent monthly payments. She pointed out that she did not intend to evade her
obligation to So, but had asked the latter to give her ample time to settle it.
 Lee manifested that Civil Case No. 740 had been dismissed in view of the Compromise Agreement
she had entered into with So. She manifested that she already paid So in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the approved Compromise Agreement.
 In her March 2019 petition, Lee reiterated the dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 and the satisfaction
of her obligation in accordance with the Compromise Agreement with So. In addition, she noted
that a Judgment by Compromise had been issued dismissing Civil Case No. 1436 in view of the
Compromise Agreement she had executed with Bolos.
 In its March 28, 2019 Report, the OBC recommended that Lee be allowed to retake the Lawyer's
Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the condition that she inform the Court within one
month from the time she has made her first payment of P15,000.00 to Bolos and to inform the
Court upon full payment of the debt in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
compromise.
ISSUE
WHETHER LEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RETAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH AND SIGN THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS?

RULING:
 Moral turpitude has been defined as an act of baselessness, vileness, or the depravity of private
and social duties that man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the accepted
and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals
 Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. The determination whether there is moral
turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances.
 In turn, it is for the Court to ultimately resolve whether an act constitutes moral turpitude. In the
same vein, not all civil cases pertain to acts involving moral turpitude. As defined, acts tainted with moral
turpitude are of such gravity that manifests an individual's depravity or lack of moral fiber.
the pendency of a civil case alone should not be a deterrent for successful Bar examinees to take their
Lawyer's Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys especially since not all charges or cases involve acts evincing
moral turpitude. The facts and circumstances of each case should be taken into account to establish that the
applicant's actions tarnished his or her moral fitness to be a member of the Bar.

 The pendency of civil cases alone should not prevent successful Bar examinees to take their
Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, unless the same involves acts or omissions which
had been previously determined by the Court to be tainted with moral turpitude. This is of course
without prejudice to the filing of any administrative action against would-be lawyers who fail to
continue to possess the required moral fitness of members of the legal profession.
 The Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant to ALLOW Ma. Lucille P.
Lee to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to some conditions

(c) Willful disobedience

(d) Gross misconduct
IV. Presumption as a lawyer
V. Confidentiality rule
-ATTY. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., vs. AFP et al. G.R. No. 214986. February 15, 2017
VI. Attack on lawyer’s citizenship
- VAZQUEZ, vs. ATTY. KHO. A.C. No. 9492. July 11, 2016
VII. Sui generic
- COBALT RESOURCES, INC. vs. ATTY. AGUADO. A.C. No. 10781. April 12, 2016
VIII. Affidavit of desistance
- I S A L O S v s . A T T Y . C R I S T A L . A.C. No. 11822. November 22, 2017
IX. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
-T A B U Z O v s . A T T Y . G O M O S . A.C. No. 12005. July 23, 2018
X. Resolutions of the IBP-BOG
- SANTIAGO, vs. ATTY. SANTIAGO AND ATTY. TOLENTINO. A.C. No. 3921. June 11, 2018
XI. Suspension
- TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. GUMBA . A.C. No. 9000. January 10, 2018
XII. Petition for reinstatement/Judicial clemency
- QUE, vs. ATTY. REVILLA, JR. A.C. No. 7054. November 11, 2014.
- RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE
PHILIPPINE BAR. ROLANDO S. TORRES. A.C. No. 5161. July 11, 2017.
- SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS. A.C. No. 5580. July 31,
2018.