Beltran vs.

Abad
A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983
By. CDDrio
Facts:
Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine Trial Lawyers
Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the
Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S. Abad could not deny and had to admit the practice. He failed
to take the lawyers oath and failed to sign his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
1. He paid his dues on July 23, 1979
2. He was to take the oath on July 26, 1979
3. And on July 26, 1979, he appeared before the SC and the Clerk of Court asked
him to sign the Lawyers Oath and waited for his turn to do the Oath. And while
waiting for his turn to take the oath he was called by the Honorable Chief Justice
Fernando to discuss the complaint lodged against by a certain Jorge Uy. He was
instructed by the CJ to prepare an Reply to the Reply of the Complainant on the
basis of his Answer to his Complaint.
4. July 31, 1979, he filed his Reply with Prayer that the court determine his fitness
to be a member of the bar.
5. May 10 1980, without action to his Prayer he received an invitation from IBP on
the upcoming Gen Assembly and for the settlement of his accounts.
6. He paid his dues thereafter and even received invitation to vote for IBP officers.
7. Something in 1981, Jorge Uy, the complainant died. He immediately informed
the Court on this fact and Praying that he be allowed to take the oath.
8. No action was taken by SC. He continued to be assessed of his dues by IBP QC
and even received Certificate of Member of Good Standing.
ISSUE:
WON a lawyer be admitted to the practice failing to do all other essential requisites
such as;
1. Taking the Oath 2. And Signing his name in the Attorneys Roll?

RULING:
NO. He was declared guilty of contempt of court and was fined Php 500.

LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS, Vs. ATTY. QUINCIANO VAILOCES,

A.C. No. 439
April 12, 1961
By CDDrio
FACTS:
It appears that as member of the bar and in his Capacity as a notary public, Vailoces,
on December 14, 1950, acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last
will and testament of one Tarcila Visitacion de Jesus. Presented for probate before the Court
of First Instance of Negros Oriental, the will was impugned by her surviving spouse and
daughter. Consequently the probate court, finding that the will was a forgery, rendered
decision denying probate to the will. This decision e final. On the basis of this decision a
criminal action for falsification of public document was filed against Vailoces and the three
attesting witnesses to the will before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental where
after trial, they were found guilty and convicted On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision with regard to Vailocess but modified it with record to his co-accused. As finally
adjudged, Vailoces was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of
public document defined and penalized in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and as
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate Penalty ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day
of prision correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor as maximum, with
the accessories of the law, finest and costs. This sentence having become final, Vailoces
began serving it in the insular penitentiary. As a consequence, the offended party instituted
the present disbarment proceedings.
In his answer, respondent not only disputes the judgment of conviction rendered
against him in the criminal case but contends that the same is based on insufficient and
inconclusive evidence, the charge being merely motivated by sheer vindictiveness, malice
and spite on the part of herein complainant, and that to give course to this proceeding would
be tantamount to placing him in double jeopardy. He pleads that the complaint be
dismissed.

ISSUE:
WON disbarment proceeding on a lawyer convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude constitute double jeopardy.
RULING:
NO.
The disbarment of an attorney does not partake of a criminal proceeding. Rather, it is
intended "to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court"
(In re Montagne and Dominguez, 3 Phil. 588), and its purpose 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".

The crime of which respondent was convicted is falsification of public document, which is
indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good morals.
Hence, such crime involves moral turpitude. Indeed, it is well-settled that "embezzlement,
forgery, robbery, and swindling are crimes which denote moral turpitude and, as a general
rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude

DOLORES D. PARIAS vs. ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO

[A.C. No. 6297. July 13, 2004]
By CDDrio
Facts:
Atty. Paguinto accepted the annulment case of Complainant Parias for an acceptance fee of
Php 25,000 and filing fee of Php 2,500. Plus other expenses. Php 10,000 was paid two
months after along with the filing fee.
After about 4 months, complainant followed up with the respondent and was told that the
cased was filed with RTC of Manila and a hearing was set. She was later informed that the
hearing was cancelled.
Without any development on the case, complainant checked with RTC of Manila and found
that no case of annulment was filed on her behalf. She was promised for the refund of her
money paid but was able to collect only upon filing of a Disbarment Case vs. her lawyer.
Amicable settlement was made and complainant withdrew her complaint and lawyer
apologized to her client.
Disbarment procedure continued despite withdrawal of the complainant
Issue:
WON disbarment case will be dismissed upon withdrawal of complaint?
Ruling:
NO.
Aproceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken
solely for the public welfare. x x x The attorney is called upon to answer to the court for his
conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of
the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of
justice.
A lawyer has the duty to give adequate attention and time to every case he accepts. A
lawyer impliedly warrants that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning and skill to
handle each case. He should exert his best judgment and exercise reasonable and ordinary
care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of his clients cause.

MARY JANE D. VELASCO, A. C. No. 5033 Complainant,

ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN and Promulgated: ATTY. HECTOR CENTENO, Respondents. July 28,
2008
By CDDrio
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she was appointed as Administratrix of her fathers estate,
Eduardo Doroin who 21 January 1996, in Papua New Guinea. Respondents were collaborating
counsels for Oppositor, Josephine Abarquez.
Atty. Doroin fooled complainant by deceitful means into making her sign an ExtraJudicial Settlement and Deed of Partition, allotting complainant the sum
ofP1,216,078.00 giving the paramour of the deceased, Josephine Abarquez, the share
of P7,296,468.00 and also allotting complainants two (2) alleged illegitimate brothers
and an alleged illegitimate sister, a similar sum of P1,216,075.00 each alleging that
such sharing is in accordance with law. But no share was assigned to complainants
mother, who was the legal wife of Dr. Eduardo Doroin.
To partially satisfy complainants share of Php 1,216,078.00, Atty. Doroin required
complainant to sign a paper which was an alleged Confirmation of Authority to Sell
the property of complainants father located at Kingspoint subdivision, Bagbag,
Novaliches, Quezon City which she did not sign this.
When the complainant
visited the said property, there was already a four-door
townhouse constructed. She later learned that it was sold by Atty. Doroin to
Evangeline Reyes-Yonemura , by forging the signature of complainants late father.
Atty. Hector B. Centeno, a Notary Public of Quezon City, knowing that complainants
father was already dead as of 21 January 1996, made it appear in the said Deed of
Absolute Sale, that complainants father appeared before him in Quezon City on 17
January 1997. Also a case for Falsification of Public Document was filed against Atty.
Hector Centeno before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City. And after the
arraignment, Atty. Centeno did not anymore appeared in court and jumped bail.
ISSUE:
WON Forgery and Falsification of documents without the necessity of criminal conviction
warrants disbarment or suspension
RULING:
Yes.
For a party to forgery and falsification Atty. was indefinitely suspended.
While Atty. Centeno having falsified documents several times and even jumped bail was
disbarred.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof generally rests upon the complainant, and
for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof

JOSELANO GUEVARRA,vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA A.C. No. 7136

2007
By CDDrio

August 1,

FACTS:Complainant is the husband of the paramour of Atty. Eala, former Sportscaster/PBA

Commissioner, model socialite Irene Moje. for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyer's oath."
Facts shows that Guevarra met Eala by way of introduction by his then fiance Irene Moje.
Respondent was married to Marianne Tantoco and had 3 children. Immediately after the
marriage of complainant to Moje. Guevarra discovered that Respondent and his wife Moje
had been exchanging affectionate text messages and has apparently been seeing each
other regularly and when confronted. She finally abandoned the conjugal home.
And complainant also discovered a folded social card with I LOVE YOU and upon opening it
bearing the following words:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will
say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you're about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but
experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or
is it because there's a bigger plan for the two of us? I hope that you have
experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly possible to
love you. And today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU! I will
love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to
the time we spent together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more
importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last
me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul,
YOU WILL ALWAYS
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO! BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I
WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE! I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR
ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"
Eternallyyours,
NOLI
Complainant later found that Eala and Moje is now living together as husband and wife and
showing themselves to family and friends as such. Thus disbarment complaint was filed vs.
Eala. Eala did not deny the relationship but stated in his Answer that it not grossly immoral
and that his legal wife is not even opposing this relationship. IBP investigator found Eala to
be guilty with recommendation for disbarment. But IBP Board of Governors reversed the
decision on the ground that Annulment of Marriage of Moje which was then pending has
been finally approved during pendency of the case.
ISSUE: WON disbarment proceedings will prosper despite the approval of annulment of
marriage of one party to the charged of adultery which was made the basis of the
proceeding.
RULING: NO. According to SC Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala,
is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Citing
the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,46 viz:

x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these
[administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal
law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different
capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case.XXX