Alejandro vs Atty Alejandro

ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS VILLARIN
AC No. 4256. February 13, 2004

Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in
support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the
birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to
comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation
“moved”, same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, present address of
respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondent’s address at 12403
Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court
ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the
IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never “deemed served”
upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.

Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman are
grounds for disbarment.

Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit
relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a
subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as
member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains
an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty.
Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back
to the IBP.

Barrientos vs Atty Meteoro

In Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, we held that:

x x x [the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers
are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at all times
faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt
payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and
 norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 explicitly states that:

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.

A.C. No. 6408, August 31, 2004

FACTS:

In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and Mercado for the
payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges and promised to pay her debt several times, but failed to
pay the full amount, even after a complaint for disbarment was filed against her.

ISSUE:

o Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

The failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may
be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are the instruments for the administration of justice
and the vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard
of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealings so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include
prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflect the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to
render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless
attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also
manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and
irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem.

Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued in his professional
capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
De Espino vs Atty Prequito

Facts: Complainant’s husband entered an agreement with the respondent in the sale of his lot for installment basis.
Respondent issued 8 checks to satisfy his obligation. However, it was dishonored and the said lot until the case is filed is
still unpaid. This prompted the complainant to file a complaint against the respondent before the ibp-cbd. The
respondent made a defense of deferring his payments due to the road-sight of way which they agreed upon with Mr.
Espino. The absence of road right of way would placed him in a disadvantageous position due to the cost of doing so.

Issue: Is the act of the respondent a violation of canons of professional responsibility?

Ruling: yes, the court found the evidence of the complainant more weight and substance than the self-serving testimony
of the complainant. His acts of was wanting of fairness, candor and honesty demanded of him by lawyers code of
professional responsibility and the canons of professional ethics. It should be stressed that respondent issued 8
worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interests and public order. Thus, the court
found him guilty of gross misconduct and ordered to be suspended from practicing law for a period of 1 year and an
immediate account of the complainant for the sale of the lot.

Guevarra vs Atty Eala

Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation
of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene
Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
children.

After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you
at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following
day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.

In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion,
he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited
to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the
conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7,
2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No.
71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also
learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert,
she was pregnant.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.

Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make
use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving
moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared
Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala 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.

Bautista vs Atty Gonzales

BAUTISTA VS. ATTY. GONZALES 182 SCRA 151 – Respondent accepted a civil case on 50% contingency based
from the litigated property’s value. After termination of the engagement, Respondent transferred to himself ½ of the
property subject of litigation. SC suspended Respondent citing that, in executing a document transferring ½ of the
subject properties to himself, Respondent violated the law (Art. 1491, CC) expressly prohibiting a lawyer from
acquiring his client’s property or interest involved in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his

profession. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expense proceedings to enforce the client’s right is
CHAMPERTOUS.

CHAM vs. ATTY. PAITA-MOYA, AC#7494, 6/27/2008

– Respondent leased an apartment owned by Complainant’s

company. Despite repeated demands, she failed to settle her unpaid account and vacated the leased premises
without notice. SC suspended Respondent reasoning that, having incurred just debts, she had the moral and legal
responsibility to settle them when they became due. Her abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her
obligations for rent and electric bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of Canon1.

ROA vs. ATTY. MORENO, AC#8382, 4/21/10

– Respondent sold a land and assured Complainant he could already altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the legal profession’s
occupy the same with the certificate of land occupancy issued by Respondent. It turns out that the property was not
dignity. If made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to lawyers and to the Bar.
owned by Respondent and was even under litigation. SC suspended Respondent citing that, his credibility is highly
questionable – he even issued a bogus certificate of land occupancy to Complaint whose only fault what that he did not
know better. To the unlettered, said certificate could have easily passed as document evidencing title.

SAMANIEGO vs. ATTY. FERRER, AC#7022, 6/18/2008

– Respondent, a married man, developed a relationship

and lived with Complainant who was his client. Despite Respondent’s insistence of Complainant’s complacency
knowing him to be a married man, SC suspended Respondent citing that, while Respondent did not abandon
Complainant but simply returned to his family, still, the complacency of one in the affair complained of immorality
against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether complainant is in pari
delicto. The Court’s investigation is not about complainant’s acts but Respondent’s conduct as one of its officers
and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.

VENTURA V. ATTY. SAMSON, AC#9608, 11/27/2012

– Respondent admitted to having sex with Complainant, a

13-year old girl, but insisted that such was not grossly immoral as it was mutually agreed upon with Complainant
who was allegedly reputed to having sex with other men for pay and that in fact, he pay her for sex. SC disbarred
Respondent holding that, his act of engaging in sex with a young lass, his former employee’s daughter constituted
gross immoral conduct that warranted sanction. He not only admitted having sexual intercourse with her but also
showed no remorse by asserting that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her
money.
BARRATRY – The offense of frequently stirring up quarrels and suits either at law or otherwise except in rare
cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
AMBULANCE CHASING – Figuratively, a lawyer’s act of chasing the ambulance with the victim of an accident for
the purpose of talking to him or his relatives and offering his legal services to file a case against the person who
caused the accident.

Rosario T. Mecaral vs. Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392, June 29, 2010.

Attoney; grossly immoral act. Respondent’ acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages
with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent
detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct which only a beast may be able to do. In fine, by engaging
himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess
the qualifications of a lawyer.

Ronquillo vs. Atty.Chavez, AC No. 6288, June 16, 2006

Ronquillo vs. Atty.Chavez

FACTS:

· Atty. Homobono t. Cezar entered into a Deed of Assignment for the price of P1.5M in favor of Marili C. Ronquillo, a
Filipino citizen residing in Cannes, France his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot and obligated himself to
deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse developer

· Respondent received P750,000.00 u pon execution of the Deed of Assignment and was able to encash the first
check of P187,500.00

· Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in full the price of
the townhouse and he also failed to deliver a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia.

o Complainant ordered stop payment on the second check of P187,500.00

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Homobono t. Cezar should be disbared or suspended for deceit and grossly immoral conduct

HELD: YES. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 3 YEARS.
· Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on
any of 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 of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

o He did not inform the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot,
and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of
Assignment.

· Respondent’s adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she paid him, which was the
fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker for 10 years, is morally reprehensible.

· Respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of morality required by the Code of Professional Responsibility
and violated the trust and respect reposed in him as a member of the Bar, and an officer of the court.

o Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the
public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession

· whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar; cannot rule on the issue of
the amount of money that should be returned

Vitug vs Rongcal

FACTS: Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced to her by
her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file against
her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with
each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial
security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.

On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter
signed without reading the said affidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino
gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her
daughter. Instead of turning them over to her, respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00
and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, sometime in April or May 2001,
respondent informed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign as he
was then running for the position of Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga

Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an administrative case
against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to return to complainant the amount of
P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent then filed a Motion
for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand
Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality

(2) Whether or not respondent’s act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document disadvantageous to his client,
is a violation of the Code.

HELD:

(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Said
requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. On sexual
relation and on respondent’s subsequent marriage, by his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his
subsisting marriage, complainant’s allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in
disbarment cases.

(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after explaining all
available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes
which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A
lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As complainant
voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel when she
experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary evidence, what
will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance with his oath.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on him a
FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision.

Coronel vs atty cunanan

A Lawyer Who Proposes To His Client A Recourse Or Remedy That Is Contrary To Law, Public Policy, Public Order And
Public Morals, Or That Lessens The Public Confidence In The Legal System Is Guilty Of Gross Misconduct, And Should be
Suspended From The Practice Of Law, Or Even Disbarred…NOVEMBER 6, 2015 BY THE LAWYER'S POST

The Case:

Gabriela filed aa complaint against Atty. Nelson Cunanan, alleging that he proposed to her the transfer by direct
registration of OCT No. 9616 and TCT No. T-72074, both registered in the names of their grandparents to her name and
to the names of her co-heirs in violation of the proper legal procedures. Following the engagement, he received from
her the amount of P70,000.00 and the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-72074, which upon demand he failed to return.
During the pendency of the case, Gabriela executed an Affidavit of Desistance, alleging that the case was based on a
misunderstanding between them. From the pleadings submitted, the Investigating Commissioner found out that when
Gabriela engaged the services of Atty. Cunanan, he advised her that there are two ways to transfer the titles to their
names: one by “ordinary procedure” and the other by direct transfer. Ordinary procedure would entail execution of Dee
of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estafa, publication, payment of capital gains tax, etc and registration with the Registry of
Deeds, which may take about five months. Direct transfer would involve preparation of documents upon advise of the
officials from the Registry of Deeds, as well as an estimated cost to be negotiated with the officials from the RD to a flat
amount of P50,000.00, which will take about one month. For OCT No. 9616, the way to do it according to respondent,
was by filing a petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate copy and thereafter proceed with transfer in the same manner
as TCT No. T-72074. It appears that she and Atty. Cunanan agreed to do the direct transfer method as she paid
P50,000.00 for direct transfer of title for TCT No. T-72074, another P50,000.00 for OCT No. 9616, P5,000.00 for litigation
fees, P5,000.00 for professional fees, Atty. Cunanan also sent her a copy of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of
Estate which they singed, along with duplicate copy of TCT No. T-72074. However, she did not hear anything anymore
from the respondent. Her demand to return the P70,000.00 as well as copy of TCT No. T-72074 went unheeded, hence
she filed the disbarment complaint. In his defense, respondent admitted most of the allegations in the complaint. He
averred, however, that there was no deceit on his part as clearly outlined to the complainant the available procedure and
afford her opportunity to think about the options. There was nothing wrong in suggesting the direct registration scheme
as it was advised to him by the officials of the Registry of Deeds. However, the transfer could not be effected as there
were lacking documents, and the officials and employees with whom he transacted were transferred to different offices.
The new officers have yet to approve the transfer, he added.

The IBP, upon recommendation of the investigating commissioner, recommended that Atty. Cunanan be suspended from
the practice of law for six months for malpractice and negligence. Atty. Cunanan moved to reconsider, in view of the
affidavit of desistance and their Joint Motion to Dismiss.

The Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Cunanan should be held administratively liable.

The Ruling:

We AFFIRM the findings and recommendations of the IBP.

A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.1 He
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct;2 or counsel or abet activities aimed at a defiance
of the law or at a lessening of confidence in the legal system.3 He should advise his client to uphold the law, not to
violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law,
public policy, public order, and public morals.

Although the respondent outlined to the complainant the “ordinary procedure” of an extrajudicial settlement of estate
as a means of transferring title, he also proposed the option of “direct registration” despite being fully aware that such
option was actually a shortcut intended to circumvent the law, and thus patently contrary to law. The transfer under the
latter option would bypass the immediate heirs of their grandparents (i.e., the complainant’s parent and her co-heirs
parents), and consequently deprive the Government of the corresponding estate taxes and transfer fees aside from
requiring the falsification of the transfer documents. He assured that he could enable the direct transfer with the help of
his contacts in the Office of the Register of Deeds and other relevant agencies of the Government, which meant that he
would be bribing some officials and employees of those offices. The proposal of “direct registration” was unquestionably
unlawful, immoral and deceitful all at once.

The respondent argues that his proposal did not deceive the complainant because he had informed her on all the “steps”
to be taken on her behalf. His argument misses the point, which is that he made the proposal despite its patent illegality
in order to take advantage of the complainant’s limited legal knowledge of the regular procedures for the transfer of title
under circumstances of intestacy. In other words, he made her agree to the “direct registration” through deceitful
misrepresentation. He then ignored the written demands from her, which forced her in the end to finally charge him with
disbarment. He thereby abused his being a lawyer to the hilt in order to cause not only his client but also the public in
general to doubt the sincerity of the members of the Law Profession, and consequently diminish the public’s trust and
confidence in lawyers in general.

Lastly, the respondent pleads for the Court to consider in his favor the fact that the complainant subsequently executed
the affidavit of desistance, and later on the Joint Motion To Dismiss.

His plea is unworthy of consideration.

An administrative case proceeds independently from the interest, or lack thereof, of the complainant, who only sets the
case in motion through the filing of the complaint. Upon her doing so, she becomes a witness to testify against the
respondent lawyer. The disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer do not involve private interests, but only how the
lawyer conducts himself in his public and private lives. Accordingly, neither the affidavit of desistance nor the Joint
Motion To Dismiss should bear any weight, or be relevant in determining whether or not the respondent was fit to
remain as a member of the Law Profession. The desistance by the complainant was a matter that was the concern only of
the parties, and was non-binding on the Court. What will be decisive in this administrative proceeding are the facts
borne out by the evidence competently adduced herein.4
The complainant testified that the respondent had proposed to her two methods to transfer title, and one was patently
contrary to law. She presented documentary proof to her testimony against him. She established that he had not
communicated with her after receiving the money and the documents. The affidavit of desistance and the Joint Motion
To Dismiss only came about after the complainant had completed her testimony, a true indication that their submission
was done in hindsight and insincerely. His remorse, if it was that, came too late.

In Bengco v. Bernardo,5 the respondent lawyer was suspended for one year from the practice of law because he had
represented that he could expedite the titling of the clients’ property with the help of his contacts in various government
offices, including the Department of Natural Resources, the Community Environment Office, and Register of Deeds. After
convincing his clients through such representations, and taken their money for that purpose, he did not bother to even
update them on the progress of the undertaking. In that regard, he was also convicted of estafa.

In Espinosa v. Omaña,6 the respondent lawyer was also suspended for one year from the practice of law for advising her
clients that they could legally live separately and dissolve their marriage by executing the Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay
(Agreement to Separate) that she had drafted. Her advice was blatantly contrary to law and public policy.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Resolution dated May, 14, 2011 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors, WITH MODIFICATION as to the recommended penalty by suspending respondent Atty.
Nelson A. Cunanan from the practice of law for one year effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision.

The Court ORDERS respondent Atty. Cunanan to RETURN to the complainant the amount of P70,000.00 within 10 days
from receipt of this decision, and to report on his compliance within five days thereafter.

Let copies of this decision be entered in the personal records of respondent Atty. Cunanan in the Office of the Bar
Confidant, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI), Bohol vs. Atty. James Benedict Florido, A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010.
Attorney; representation within bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his
client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice
and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.

PURPOSES OF THE NOTARIAL LAW – (a) promote, serve and protect public interest; (b) simplify, clarify and
modernize rules governing notaries public; and (c) foster ethical conduct among notaries public (Sec. 2, Rule 1 of
2004 Notarial Practice Rules.

PENA V. ATTY PATERNO, AC#4191, 6/10/2013

– A disbarment complaint charged that Respondent sold

Complainant’s property by forging her signature and notarizing said spurious instrument. No copy of the questioned
instrument could be presented because Respondent did not submit to the clerk of court her notarial report when the
deed of sale was executed. For her deceitful conduct, Supreme Court disbarred Respondent holding that, failure to
submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her notarial register/report, has far reaching implications and grave
consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of said deed of sale and showed the deceitful
conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. For such deceitful conduct, Respondent
DISBARRED from the practice of law.

ESPINOSA V. ATTY. OMANA, AC#9081, 10/12/2011

– Supreme Court suspended Atty. Omana for preparing and

allegedly notarizing a “Kasunduan” extrajudicially allowing the spouses to live separately and dissolving their
marriage and conjugal partnership. Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is
void and a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of marriage and the family by encouraging
separation of spouses and extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership. In preparing a void document,
Respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1. Even granting arguendo that the document was notarized by
Respondent’s staff, it only showed Respondent’s negligence in doing her notarial duties. A notary public is
personally responsible for entries in his notarial register.

UY vs. ATTY. SAÑO, AC#6505, 9/11/2008

– For notarizing a document despite expiration of his notarial

commission, Respondent was suspended by the Supreme Court reasoning that, a lawyer’s act of notarizing without
the requisite commission is reprehensible constituting as it does not only malpractice but falsification of public
documents. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but one invested with substantive public
interest converting a private document into a public document without further proof of authenticity.