Module 8

Tan v. Atty. Alvarico

A.C. No. 10933 | Nov. 3, 2020

FACTS:
• Complainant, Wilson B. Tan, led a disbarment complaint against Atty. James Roulyn R.
Alvarico for con ict of interest and betrayal of trust and con dence.
• Complainant is the o ended party in a theft case, and Atty. Alvarico is the counsel for the
accused, Blas Fier "Buddy" Manco.
• Complainant alleges that Atty. Alvarico approached him to settle the case, demanding a 15%
commission, which led to failed negotiations.

ISSUE:
• Whether Atty. Alvarico violated Rule 15.03 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
• The Court nds no cogent reason to depart from the ndings of the IBP Board of Governors.
• Atty. Alvarico's negotiations with complainant did not constitute a con ict of interest, as he
acted in the interest of his client, Manco.
• Complainant failed to prove the charges by substantial evidence, and the case is dismissed
for lack of merit.

Flores v. Mayor, Jr.

A.C. No. 7314 | August 25, 2015

FACTS:
In Administrative Case No. 7314, Mary Ann T. Flores led a complaint against Atty. Jovencio
LL. Mayor, Jr., a Labor Arbiter, for gross delay, unexplained resort to archiving, and refusal to
issue a writ of execution. Respondent had dismissed a labor case against JMJB International
Services, Inc., leading to a prolonged legal battle.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Jovencio LL. Mayor, Jr. is guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and other ethical standards.

HELD:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Mayor guilty and recommended
disbarment. The Supreme Court a rmed, citing his neglect of duty, ignorance of the law, and
violation of professional standards. Given his previous suspension and repeated o enses, the
Court ordered his immediate disbarment, nding him unworthy of continuing in the legal
profession.
fi
fl
ff
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
 Atty. Santos v. Atty. Tan
A.M. No. 2697 | April 19, 1991

FACTS:
Atty. Jose S. Santos led disbarment proceedings on November 20, 1984, against Atty.
Cipriano A. Tan, accusing him of gross misconduct involving acts of immorality, falsi cation,
and bigamy. The charges included maintaining an amorous relationship with a subordinate,
falsifying his marriage contract, and entering into a bigamous marriage.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cipriano A. Tan is guilty of immoral conduct and should be subjected to
disciplinary action.

HELD
:The Solicitor General, after a thorough review, found grounds for disbarment, particularly
regarding immoral conduct. The respondent's alibi and defense were deemed weak, and
doubts were cast on the authenticity of his claims. Despite being retired, the Solicitor General
recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law for humanitarian reasons. The
Supreme Court agreed with these ndings and suspended Atty. Cipriano A. Tan for one year.
The counter-complaint against Atty. Jose S. Santos was dismissed for lack of merit.

Fabugais v. Atty. Faundo, Jr.

A.C. No. 10145 | June 11, 2018

FACTS:
Complainant Oliver Fabugais led a complaint against Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr., accusing
him of gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The complaint alleged that Atty.
Faundo engaged in immoral relations with the complainant's wife and later harassed the
complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. committed acts of grossly immoral conduct justifying
disciplinary action.

HELD:
The IBP found Atty. Faundo guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for inappropriate behavior with the complainant's wife, creating the appearance
of immorality. While explicit sexual immorality was not proven, Atty. Faundo's conduct was
considered condemnable and unseemly. The IBP recommended a one-month suspension from
the practice of law, and the Supreme Court agreed with this recommendation, emphasizing the
need for lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Atty. Faundo was
warned to be more careful in his actions.
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Hon. Mupas
A.M. No. RTJ-202593 | Nov. 10, 2020
FACTS:
• Hon. Jesus B. Mupas, Presiding Judge of RTC Pasay City, faces an administrative case over
alleged irregular issuances of TRO and WPI.
• PNCC, a government-owned corporation, led ejectment cases against lessees, including
Jecar.
• Judge Ramos-Malabanan issued WPI against Jecar, restoring possession to PNCC. Jecar
led a Rule 65 petition.
• Judge Mupas granted TRO in favor of Jecar, enjoining the WPI. PNCC reported Mupas'
actions to the Court.
• PNCC argues Mupas contravened procedural rules and enjoined an act already
accomplished.

ISSUE:
• Whether Judge Mupas' issuance of injunctive reliefs is valid, considering procedural rules
and the status of the case.

HELD:
• The Court nds Judge Mupas guilty of three counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law.
• Mupas issued injunctive reliefs without proper legal basis and violated procedural rules,
showing incompetence.
• He is ned P125,000, dismissed from service with bene ts forfeiture, and perpetually
disquali ed from re-employment.
• Multiple infractions, including previous warnings, render Judge Mupas un t for judicial duties.

Domingo v. Civil Service Commission and Manalo

G.R. No. 236050 | June 17, 2020

FACTS:
Petitioner Estrella M. Domingo, Chief Archivist at the National Archives of the Philippines (NAP),
attended a seminar without prior o ce approval. She acted as a resource speaker,
disseminating NAP materials. The NAP found her guilty of grave misconduct, serious
dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to service, leading to her dismissal. The Civil Service
Commission a rmed the decision.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner liable for the mentioned charges based on the presented facts?

HELD:
No. The Court ruled that petitioner is not liable for the mentioned charges. Misconduct, to be
grave, requires elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or agrant disregard of
rules, supported by substantial evidence. In this case, petitioner attended the seminar during
her leave, not on o cial time, and no evidence proved her personal gain. There was no
misrepresentation or conduct prejudicial to service, as petitioner contributed positively to
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fl
another government unit. The dismissal decision is reversed and set aside. The complaint
against her is dismissed.

Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 191972 | January
26, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin (Ong) and Leo Obsioma, Jr. were convicted of estafa by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City. The Court of Appeals a rmed the decision, and its
Entry of Judgment declared the case nal and executory on May 15, 2003. Ong led a Petition,
claiming his counsel never received the Resolution denying reconsideration.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals abused discretion in issuing the entry of judgment.
2. Whether the trial court abused discretion in issuing the arrest warrant.
3. Whether Ong's former counsel was grossly negligent.

HELD:
1. No grave abuse of discretion; the registry return card indicated counsel received the
Resolution on April 29, 2003.
2. No abuse; the trial court executed the judgment as directed by the Court of Appeals.
3. The negligence of Ong's former counsel binds him; the delay of almost seven years in ling
the Petition shows lack of vigilance, akin to Bejarasco, Jr. v. People. The court dismissed
the Petition for Certiorari.

Tangcay v. Cabarroguis
A.C. No. 11821 | April 2, 2018

FACTS:
Tangcay hired Atty. Cabarroguis to handle his inherited land's probate case. While representing
Tangcay, Atty. Cabarroguis learned the land was mortgaged. He o ered Tangcay a loan with
better terms, which Tangcay accepted. When Tangcay defaulted, Atty. Cabarroguis initiated a
judicial foreclosure. The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Cabarroguis administratively liable for
violating Rule 16.04 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cabarroguis violated the prohibition against lawyers lending money to their
clients.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Cabarroguis violated Rule 16.04 of Canon 16, which prohibits lawyers from lending
money to clients unless it's in the interest of justice to advance necessary expenses. This rule
safeguards a lawyer's independence and ensures undivided attention to the client's cause.
Atty. Cabarroguis is suspended from the practice of law for three months.
fi
ffi
ff
fi
fi
 Cham v. Paita-Moya
A.C. No. 7494 | June 27, 2008

FACTS:
Complainant led a disbarment case against Atty. Paita-Moya, accusing her of deceit for
occupying a leased apartment without paying rent and vacating without settling dues.
Respondent claimed she left due to complainant's order to vacate for repairs. The IBP Board of
Governors initially dismissed the complaint, but the Court disagreed, nding evidence of
unpaid rent and electric bills, leading to a violation of professional conduct.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Paita-Moya violated professional conduct by willfully failing to pay her debts.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Paita-Moya was guilty of willful failure to pay just debts. The complaint presented
letters demanding payment, and the respondent failed to produce evidence of payment. Such
conduct violates Canon I and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
suspended Atty. Paita-Moya from the practice of law for one month. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege, demanding high moral character, and any gross misconduct warrants
administrative sanctions.

Sison, Jr. v. Camacho

A.C. No. 10910 | January 12, 2016

FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Antero M. Sison, Jr. accused respondent Atty. Manuel Camacho of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Allegations include unauthorized compromise
agreement and failure to account for funds. The dispute stemmed from an insurance claim
case where Atty. Camacho, counsel for MDAHI, allegedly mishandled an increased claim,
received additional docket fees, and entered into a compromise agreement without client
authorization.

ISSUES:
1. Whether Atty. Camacho violated Rule 1.01 by entering a compromise agreement without
client consent.
2. Whether Atty. Camacho violated Rule 16.01 by failing to account for funds intended as
additional docket fees.

HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Camacho violated Rule 1.01 for entering into a compromise agreement without
client consent, as evidenced by absence of client conformity.
fi
fi
 2. Yes. Atty. Camacho violated Rule 16.01 by failing to account for funds, designated for
additional docket fees, received from the client. The court dismissed the criminal case as
premature but found Atty. Camacho's actions in violation of ethical standards.

Atty. Manuel Camacho is DISBARRED from the practice of law, and he is ORDERED to return
the misappropriated funds to Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc. within ninety (90)
days.

Egger v. Atty. Duran

A.C. No. 11323 | September 14, 2016

FACTS:
Complainant hired respondent Atty. Duran to le a petition for the annulment of his marriage,
depositing P100,000 in two tranches. Despite payment, respondent failed to le the petition,
prompting complainant to demand a refund. Respondent promised to return the money but did
not ful ll the commitment. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) found respondent administratively liable, recommending a six-month suspension
and the return of P100,000.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty. Duran should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is held liable for violating Canon 18 for neglecting the legal matter entrusted
to him, and Canons 16.01 and 16.03 for failing to account for and return the P100,000
representing legal fees. The Court imposes a six-month suspension and orders respondent to
return the P100,000 within ninety (90) days from the nality of the decision. Failure to comply
will result in a more severe penalty.

Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho

A.C. No. 10498 | September 4, 2018

FACTS:
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho faces a veri ed Complaint-A davit for Disbarment, alleging
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant, a judge, asserts that during
a case where Camacho was the counsel, the latter attempted to in uence the judge through
name-dropping and connections with Supreme Court Justices. After the court's ruling in favor
of Camacho's client, the lawyer tried to bribe the judge to deny defendants' notice of appeal.
Camacho even threatened to le a disbarment case against the judge, claiming connections
with higher authorities.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Manuel N. Camacho violated legal ethics by attempting to in uence the judge,
engaging in bribery, and threatening court o cers.
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
fl
fl
fi
 HELD:
The Court nds Camacho guilty of violating Canons 10, 11, 13, 19, and Rules 10.01, 11.03,
13.01, 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. The o enses
include in uence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court o cers, and disrespecting
court processes. Considering the gravity of the o enses, the Court imposes a suspension from
the practice of law for two years. However, since Camacho was previously disbarred, this
penalty may only serve the purpose of recording in his personal le for potential future
consideration if he applies for the lifting of his disbarment in another case.

Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Gumba

A.C. No. 9000 | January 10, 2018
FACTS:
Complainant Tomas P. Tan, Jr. led a disbarment complaint against Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba
for gross unethical conduct. In August 2000, respondent borrowed ₱350,000 from
complainant, promising to repay it with 12% interest after one year, using a property as
security. Respondent failed to ful ll her obligation, and complainant discovered that she
deceived him regarding the Special Power of Attorney.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Vista-Gumba's actions constitute gross misconduct, violating legal and ethical
standards.

HELD:
The IBP found Atty. Vista-Gumba guilty and recommended a one-year suspension. The
Supreme Court agrees with the violation but reduces the penalty to a six-month suspension,
emphasizing that disbarment should be exercised cautiously. The ruling aims to protect the
public and the legal profession rather than solely punish the lawyer. The decision is e ective
immediately, with a warning for stricter consequences for future violations.

Bartolome v. Basilio
A.C. No. 10783 Resolution | January 31, 2018

FACTS:
Attorney Christopher A. Basilio led a Motion to Lift Suspension, seeking to remove the one-
year suspension imposed by the Court. The Court's October 14, 2015 Decision found him
guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Basilio was suspended from practicing law, and his commission as
a notary public was revoked for two years. The O ce of the Bar Con dant (OBC)
recommended a ₱10,000 ne for Basilio's failure to promptly comply with the suspension
order.
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
ff
 ISSUE:
Whether Basilio's suspension should be lifted, and if he should be ned for not immediately
complying with the Court's suspension order.

HELD:
The Court denies the lifting of Basilio's suspension. He is found guilty of indirect contempt and
is ned ₱10,000. The lifting of the suspension is held in abeyance until the ne is paid. The
Court emphasizes the immediate e ectivity of the suspension and warns Basilio of stricter
consequences for future infractions.

Nuñez v. Atty. Ricafort

A.C. No. 5054 | March 2, 2021
FACTS:
Romulo L. Ricafort, a disbarred attorney, led a Petition for Judicial Clemency seeking
reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. Three disciplinary complaints were led against him
(A.C. No. 5054, A.C. No. 8253, A.C. No. 6484) involving serious breaches of duciary duties. In
A.C. No. 5054, he failed to remit sale proceeds to a client, resulting in inde nite suspension. In
A.C. No. 8253, he misused funds and failed to le a required memorandum, leading to
disbarment. In A.C. No. 6484, he neglected a client's case and practiced law despite
suspension, resulting in another disbarment.

ISSUE:
The central issue is whether judicial clemency should be granted to Ricafort.

HELD:
The court denies the clemency petitions, observing con icting actions and the need to institute
new guidelines. Judicial clemency hinges on remorse, reformation, time elapsed, age, promise,
and relevant factors. In Ricafort's case, the court nds no prima facie merit due to lacking
evidence, questionable testimonials, and numerous serious breaches. The court upholds its
previous denial in A.C. No. 8253 and denies the subject petitions in A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484.

Re: Letter of Judge Diaz,

A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC | September 19, 2007
FACTS:
Judge Augustus C. Diaz, presiding judge of Branch 37, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City,
seeks judicial clemency for his application to vacant Regional Trial Court branches in Metro
Manila. He was previously ned ₱20,000 for not hearing a motion for demolition. In his request,
Judge Diaz expresses remorse, claiming the lapse resulted from oversight. He later confesses
his mistake, promises to avoid similar acts, and submits to the court's discretion. In a previous
case (Alvarez v. Diaz), he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ned ₱20,000.

ISSUE:
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
Whether Judge Diaz should be granted judicial clemency to be eligible for nomination to vacant
Regional Trial Court branches.

HELD:
The court grants judicial clemency to Judge Diaz, noting his sincere repentance and 12 years
of service in the judiciary as proof of dedication. The court applies guidelines requiring proof of
remorse, reformation, su cient time lapse, a showing of promise, and other relevant factors.
Judge Diaz's request is deemed merited, allowing him the opportunity for further service in the
judiciary.
ffi