SPS. ARANDA v. ATTY.

EMMANUEL ELAYDA
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
Facts: shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
- The hearing for the spouses’ case (Guballa v. Sps Aranda) was set
on Feb 14, 2006, but the notice was only given to respondent nor CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
did not inform the petitioners, nor any follow-ups were made by WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
respondent.
- Due to the inaction of R, the case was rendered a judgment, and As the spouses Aranda's counsel, Atty. Elayda is expected to monitor the
such copy was given to the spouses. No notice of appeal was filed progress of said spouses' case and is obligated to exert all efforts to present
by R, hence, a writ of execution was rendered to take the Mitsubishi every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the cause espoused by
Pajero; the spouses Aranda. Atty. Elayda even admitted that the spouses Aranda
- That they were deprived of their right to due process; never knew of the scheduled hearings because said spouses never came to
- R argued that it was petitioner-spouses who did not contact him him and that he did not know the spouses' whereabouts. While it is true that
(hindi daw nya alam number nila). He actually asked for communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his clients,
postponement because Ps are absent. That the only contact the Ps it is the counsel's primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their case
made was when the writ was issued. He alleged that he cannot be and the orders
faulted for the non-filing since the spouses failed to contact him. which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to
IBP: Guilty of Gross Negligence, recommended suspension from practice of make an inquiry about the developments in their case.
law for 6 months.
Evidently, Atty. Elayda was remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a
Issue: WoN R was negligent in handling the case, and whether it warrants member of the legal profession. His conduct shows that he not only failed to
suspension. exercise due diligence in handling his clients' case but in fact abandoned his
clients' cause.
RULING: YES.
The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is to render public REYNALDO RAMIREZ v. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO
service and secure justice for those who seek its aid. They must perform
their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, Facts:
the courts and their clients in accordance with the values and norms of the Complainant engaged the services of respondent in a civil case for quieting
legal profession, as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. of title. It was alleged that respondent offered her legal services on the
condition that she’ll be given 30% of the land subject. Instead of AF. After
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS the perfection of their appeal, R never contacted nor informed C of the status
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND of his case despite several follow ups, until R informed him that the appeal
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. was denied. C discovered that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary
period.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Ramirez now alleged that Margallo violated Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.
Margallo, in her defense, stated that she informed the complainants that they
Rule 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate only have 50% chance of winning the case. Also denied that 30% agreement.
preparation. That her failure to inform Ramirez was because she lost his number because
her kid played with her phone.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. IBP: Approved with a stern warning. The BOG affirmed the increasing of
suspension to 2 years.
 Its recommended penalties are also, by its nature, recommendatory. Despite
Issue: WoN respondent faithfully discharged her duties of candor to her the
client; and WoN the penalty was too severe. precedents, it is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that recognizes that the
severity of
RULING: YES. Suspended 2 years. the infraction is worth a penalty of two-year suspension.
Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in
managing cases entrusted to them. They commit not only to review cases or FLORDELIZA MADRIA v. ATTY. CARLOS RIVERA
give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their ability
without need to be reminded by either the client or the court. Facts:
Complainant consulted respondent in his law office in Tuguegarao City to
Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her husband, Juan.
disciplinary action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of R guaranteed a successful case, C paid P25k for the legal services. On Nov.
exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyer's mere 19 (as ordered), C returned to R’s law office, signed the petition. R advised C
failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. that appearance in court is not required, that all court notices and processes
would be sent to his office and that he would regularly apprise her of the
The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. developments. After many follow ups from the daughter, R informed that
Margallo and her client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence the petition was granted. Vanessa (daughter) got a copy of the decision from
of her client. This cost Judge Aquino of the RTC.
complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate
remedies. His legal cause was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on According to C, R advised her to wait for 5 months after the release of
the merits of his case, but decision before she could safely claim the status of “single.” After the lapse
because a person privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties of 5 months, she declared in her Voter’s Registration Record that she was
with the requisite diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was single. Vanessa also received from R a copy of the certificate of finality
no longer interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no signed by one Jacinto Danao.
proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This is an
admission that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the basis of an Believing that the certificates were authentic, C filed for her renewal of
assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all possible means passport. However, she became the object of the NBI Investigation because
to protect complainant Ramirez's interest, which is contrary to what she had her former partner, Andrew Dowson Grainge, filed a complaint charging
sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. For these reasons, she that she fabricated her annulment. Only then did she learn that the decision
clearly violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of and the certificate of finality given by R did not exist in the court records. As
Professional Responsibility. a result, she was charged for violation of the Ph Passport Act. Her defense
was that she relied on good faith of R’s representations.
Lawyers are expected not only to be familiar with the minute facts of their
cases but also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of action or R denies all the allegations, averring that he informed C that he would still
their defenses. The salience of these facts is not usually patent to the client. It be carefully reviewing the grounds to support her petition; that she’s the one
can only be seen through familiarity with the relevant legal provisions that who insisted to prepare the draft of the petition so she could show her
are invoked with their jurisprudential interpretations. More so with the foreigner fiancé; she’s the one who prevailed upon him to fabricate the
intricacies of the legal procedure. It is the lawyer that receives the notices decision and certificate of finality.
and must decide the mode of appeal to protect the interest of his or her
client. Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is regarded as IBP: R violated the Lawyer’s Oath; recommended suspension of two years.
highly 􀁀duciary. Between the lawyer and the client, it is the lawyer that has
the better knowledge of facts, events, and remedies. Issue: WoN R be held liable for the accusations against him.
RULING: YES, R disbarred. disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or
The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to
marriage, and of the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His do.
explanation of having done so only upon the complainant's persistent
prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or
explanation is unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for
participating in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The moral
of the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the
not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent's case. highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of
their practice of law.
The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and
1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional We note that the respondent was previously sanctioned for unprofessional
Responsibility, to wit: conduct. In Cruz-Villanueva v. Rivera, he was suspended from the practice of
law because he had notarized documents without a notarial commission.
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY This
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND circumstance shows his predisposition to beguile other persons into
LEGAL PROCESSES. believing in the documents that he had falsified or simulated.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. RETIRED JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA v. ATTY RONALDO ANTONIO
CALAYAN
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in Facts:
the legal system. Respondent was the President and Chairman of the BOT of CEFI (Calayan
Educational Foundation Inc) which is a petitioner in an intracorporate
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND controversy. He signed and filed pleadings as “Special Counsel pro se” for
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS himself. The case was re-raffled to complainant. C issued an Omnibus Order
CLIENTS. for the creation of a management committee and appointment of its
Rule 15.07. — A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the members. This prompted an admin case against complainant (but later on
laws and the principles of fairness. dismissed). The Court, referred the comment/opposition with counter-
complaint filed by complainant in the admin case against him to the Office
Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the of the Bar Confidant (OBC) but the OBC referred the case to the IBP for
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which investigation.
would have been enough to deter him from committing the falsification, as
well as to make him unhesitatingly frustrate her prodding in deference to his Complainant:
sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty and to obey the Asserted that respondent committed the following:
laws of the land. Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express (1) serious and gross misconduct in his duties as counsel for himself;
undertaking under his Lawyer's Oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to its (2) violated his oath as lawyer for:
commission." [a] his failure to observe and maintain respect to the courts (Section 20 (b),
Rule 138, Rules of Court);
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred [b] by his abuse of judicial process thru maintaining actions or proceedings
on any of the following grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross inconsistent with truth and honor and his acts to mislead the judge by false
misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime statements (Section 20 (d), Rule 138);
involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful
(3) repeatedly violated the rules of procedures governing intra-corporate of various pleadings and/or motions. It was in his desperation and earnest
cases and maliciously misused the same to defeat the ends of justice; and desire to save CEFI from further damage that he implored
(4) knowingly violated the rule against the filing of multiple actions arising the aid of the courts.
from the same cause of action.
The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with
That the court-appointed receiver was claimed by R to be unacceptable utmost zeal. However, professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal
because he knows that he, his wife and daughter, will lose their positions as and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. The filing of
Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary, and as members of CEFI. cases by respondent against the adverse parties and their counsels, as
correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, manifests his
C also alleged that Atty. Calayan also filed two (2) related intra-corporate malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in
controversy cases — violating the rule on protecting their client's interest.
splitting causes of actions — involving the management and operation of the
foundation. According to complainant, these showed the propensity and As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the
penchant of respondent in filing cases, whether or not they are baseless, respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from
frivolous or unfounded, with no other intention but to harass, malign and offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court and must
molest his opposing parties, including the lawyers and the handling judges. refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the
C’s mind, 􀀱ling the numerous pleadings, motions, manifestation and record or have no materiality to the case. R attributed unsupported
explanations was to prevent the takeover of the management of CEFI and to imputations against C. Insisted that complainant antedated the order, dated
finally dismiss the case at the pre-trial stage. August 15, 2008, because the envelopes where the order came from were
rubber stamped as having been mailed only on August 26, 2008. He also
Respondent: accused the complainant judge of being in cahoots and of having deplorable
That the case is already barred by doctrine of res judicata. He stressed that close ties with the adverse counsels; and that complainant irrefutably
because no disciplinary measures were levelled on him by the OCA as an coached said adverse counsels. However, these bare allegations are
outcome of his complaint, charges for malpractice, malice or bad faith were absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence. Respondent did not
entirely ruled out; more so, his disbarment was decidedly eliminated. Lastly, present any proof to establish complainant's alleged partiality or the
the counter-complaint failed to adduce the requisite quantum of evidence to antedating.
disbar him, even less, to cite him in contempt of court assuming ex gratia the
regularity of the referral of the case. CAROLINE JIMENEZ v. ATTY EDGAR FRANCISCO
Facts:
IBP: Respondent violated the CPR; Instead of refuting the allegations, he Mario Crespo (aka Mark Jimenez) filed a complaint for estafa against
merely reiterated that allegations. complainant and others, alleging that he was the true and beneficial owner
of the shares of stock in Clarion Realty and Devt Corporation. He asserted
Issue: WoN R displayed conducts unbecoming of a worthy lawyer. that the incorporators, one of which is herein respondent, executed a deed of
assignment of the shares in favor of complainant as Mark’s common-law
RULING: YES partner. In order to purchase a Forbes property, Clarion simulated a loan
from the complainant. To effect the sale, one incorporator named Myla
Respondent did not deny filing several cases, both civil and criminal, against Villanueva handed a check which is entirely funded by Jimenez. However,
opposing parties and their counsels. In his the sale was underfunded. On 2002, Jimenez transferred all his shares to
motion for reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution, he complainant by deed of assignment.
again admitted such acts but expressed that it was not ill-willed. He
explained that the placing of CEFI under receivership and directing the Jimenez, while imprisoned in the US in 2004, learned from respondent that
creation of a management committee and the continuation of the receiver's his son, Marcel, approached complainant and threatened her, claiming that
duties and responsibilities by virtue of the Omnibus Order spurred his filing the US-IRS will go after the properties, so as to transfer the shares to another
person (they succeeded). Thereafter, Jimenez was informed by Atty. client relationship between him and complainant was formed, as a
Francisco that, through fraudulent means, complainant and her co- corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its shareholders.
respondents in the estafa case, put the Forbes property for sale sometime in
August 2004. Atty. Francisco relayed to Jimenez that he was the one who IBP: Francisco admitted to have simulated the loan and undervalued the
received the payment for the sale of consideration of the effected sale of the Forbes property, which displayed his
the Forbes property and that he handed all the proceeds thereof to unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in violation of Canon 1
Rosemarie Flaminiano in the presence of complainant. of the CPR. Further, when he executed the affidavit containing allegations
against the interest of Clarion and complainant, the Investigating
(Long story short: The estafa was based on complainant’s alleged Commissioner held that Atty. Francisco violated the rule on privileged
participation in the fraudulent selling of the Forbes property acquired by communication and engaged in an act that constituted representation of
Clarion; and that complainant was duty-bound to remit all the sale proceeds conflicting interests in violation of Canons 15 and 21 of the CPR.
to Jimenez)
ISSUE: WoN respondent be held liable for the allegations against him; and
Complainant’s allegations: WoN there was lawyer-client relationship established between parties.
She felt betrayed of the allegations, especially on the affidavit of respondent
on whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion’s corporate counsel RULING: Partially affirmed IBP Recommendation; 6-month suspension.
and secretary, hence, the instant case. According to her, she usually
conferred with respondent regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or
transactions. As for the sale mentioned, all principal documents regarding in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful."
the sale and transfer of the property were all prepared by respondent, who’s "Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality
also an active participant on the transactions. Without admitting the truth of although the concept is broad enough to include such element. To be
the allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its execution clearly "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be
betrayed the trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness and straightforwardness while conduct that is "deceitful" means the
Respondent’s argument: proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device
Jimenez engaged his services during the incorporation of Clarion for the that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and
purchase of a residential house in Forbes park where he intended to live damage of the party imposed upon.
with complainant. And as the corporate secretary and legal counsel, his task
was to prepare the legal documentations to give effect of the sale. that When Atty. Francisco was admitted to the Bar, he also took an oath to "obey
Marcel and complainant led him to believe that Jimenez had knowledge of the laws," "do no falsehood," and conduct himself as a lawyer according to
the sale as they were in constant communication with him; that all these the best of his knowledge and discretion.
representations, however, turned out to be false when Jimenez returned to
the Philippines and discovered that the proceeds of the sale were coursed Atty. Francisco clearly violated the canons and his sworn duty. He is guilty
through other corporations set up by complainant and her sister. of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted to having
allowed his corporate client, Clarion, to actively misrepresent to the SEC, the
Atty. Francisco mainly argued that he violated neither the rule on significant matters regarding its corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate
disclosures of privileged communication nor the proscription against shareholdings. In the documents submitted to the SEC, such as the deeds of
representing conflicting interests, on the ground that complainant was not assignment and the GIS, Atty. Francisco, in his professional capacity, feigned
his client. He was the lawyer of Jimenez and the legal counsel of Clarion, the validity of these transfers of shares, making it appear that these were
but never of the complainant. He might have assisted her in some matters, done for consideration when, in fact, the said transactions were fictitious,
but these were all under the notion that Jimenez had given him authority to albeit upon the alleged orders of Jimenez. The Investigating Commissioner
do so. Further, though he acted as legal counsel for Clarion, no attorney- was correct in pointing out that this ran counter to the deeds of assignment
which he executed as corporate counsel. In his long practice as corporate
counsel, it is indeed safe to assume that Atty. Francisco is knowledgeable in In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption
the law on contracts, corporation law and the rules enforced by the SEC. As of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
corporate secretary of Clarion, it was his duty and obligation to register clearly prove the allegations in the complaint by preponderant evidence.
valid transfers of stocks. Nonetheless, he chose to advance the interests of Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is,
his clientele with patent disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Worse, Atty. as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.
Francisco admitted to have simulated the loan entered into by Clarion and to
have undervalued the consideration of the effected sale of the Forbes Conflict of interest, the following were lacking:
property. He permitted this fraudulent ruse to cheat the government of (1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-
taxes. Unquestionably, therefore, Atty. Francisco participated in a series of client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that
grave legal infractions and was content to have granted the requests of the the client made the communication.
persons involved. (2) The client made the communication in confidence. The mere relation of
attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The
Despite assertions that these were in accordance to Jimenez's wishes, or client must intend the communication to be confidential.
pursuant to complainant's misrepresentations, the Court cannot turn a blind (3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
eye on Atty. Francisco's act of drafting, or at the very least, permitting professional capacity.
untruthful statements to be embodied in public documents. If the Court
allows this highly irregular practice for the specious reason that lawyers are
constrained to obey their clients' flawed scheming and machinations, the
Court would, in effect, sanction wrongdoing and falsity. This is violative of FABUGAIS v. ATTY FAUNDO
Canon 10 of the CPR. Facts:
This is a Complaint filed by complainant Oliver Fabugais (complainant)
CONFLICTING INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED against Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. (respondent lawyer), for gross
COMMUNICATION – SC denied misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for having allegedly
engaged in illicit and immoral relations with his wife, Annaliza Lizel B.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, "[a] lawyer shall not Fabugais (Annaliza). Because of these developments, complainant filed a
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned case for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Annaliza, with prayer
given after a full disclosure of the facts." "The relationship between a lawyer for the custody of their minor children. In said case, respondent lawyer
and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for Annaliza.
and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to
promote a full disclosure of the client's most confidential information to Respondent lawyer denied that he had any immoral relations with Annaliza.
his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. He claimed that he was merely assisting Annaliza in her tempestuous court
Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to battle with complainant for custody of her children. Respondent lawyer
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy asserted that when Marie Nicole's maternal grandmother, Ma. Eglinda L.
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, Bantoto, sought out his help in this case, he told them that they could hide in
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with the client. Part his (respondent lawyer's) parents' house in Ipil. Respondent lawyer claimed
of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting that the cordial relationship he had with Annaliza could be traced to her
interests.” being the stepdaughter of his (respondent lawyer's) late uncle, and also to
her having been his former student at the Western Mindanao State
The claim was unsubstantiated. All that the complaint alleged was that Atty. University in Zamboanga City. Respondent lawyer insisted that he was
Francisco was Clarion's legal counsel and that complainant sought advice incapable of committing the misconduct imputed to him for three simple
and requested documentation of several transfers of shares and the sale of reasons to wit: because he is a good father to his three children, because he is
the Forbes property. a respected civic leader, and because he had never been the subject even of a
complaint with the police. He claimed that complainant filed the instant
complaint simply "to harass him from practicing his legitimate profession, enjoy a good night's rest in his airconditioned chamber, reeks with racy,
and for no other reason." ribald humor.
IBP: Respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Suspend 1 month.
Respondent lawyer's defense that he was a "respectable father with three
ISSUE: Did respondent lawyer in fact commit acts that are grossly immoral, children" and that he was a "respected civic leader" to boot, flies in the face
or acts that amount to serious moral depravity, that would warrant or call of a young girl's perception of his diminished deportment. It does not escape
for his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law? this Court's attention that the 10-year old Marie Nicole called respondent
lawyer "Tito Attorney." Indeed, by calling respondent lawyer as "Tito
RULING: Yes Attorney" Marie Nicole effectively proclaimed her avuncular affection for
him, plus her recognition of his being a member of the legal profession. In
It bears stressing that this case can proceed in spite of complainant's death fact, a close examination of Marie Nicole's testimony cannot fail to show that
and the apparent lack of interest on the part of complainant's heirs. in Marie Nicole's young mind, it was clearly not right, appropriate or proper
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in nature: they are for her "Tito Attorney" to be sharing the same bed with her and her mother,
intended and undertaken primarily to look into the conduct or behavior of and for her mother to remain alone in the same room with her "Tito
lawyers, to determine whether they are still fit to exercise the privileges of Attorney," while this "Tito Attorney" was dressing up. In all these
the legal profession, and to hold them accountable for any misconduct or happenings, a modicum of decency should have impelled this "Tito
misbehavior which deviates from the mandated norms and standards of the Attorney" to behave more discreetly and more sensitively, as he could not
Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which are needful and necessary have been unaware that Marie Nicole was observing him closely and that
to the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession. she could be forming her impressions of lawyers and the legal profession by
the actions and the behavior of this, her "Tito Attorney."
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct, which is so willful,
flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. This Court has held that for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral,
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree."

In the present case, going by the eyewitness testimony of complainant's

The acts complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly immoral
in its rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt condemnable.
Respondent lawyer who made avowals to being a respectable father to three
children, and also to being a respected leader of his community apparently
had no qualms or scruples about being seen sleeping in his own bed with
another man's wife, his arms entwined in tender embrace with the latter.
Respondent lawyer's claim that he was inspired by nothing but the best of
intentions in inviting another married man's wife and her 10-years old
daughter to sleep with him in the same bed so that the three of them could