ethics case digests 1

7/24/2019 Ethics Case Digests 1

1/10

1. Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38, June 8, 2000

2. In re Cunanan et. al, !" #$il %3"

3. &oreta vs. Atty. Si'(liciano, ""3 SCRA 1, )ove'*er 18, 200"

". +uin-a vs. #uno, 1! SCRA "3!

%. Royon vs. *lena, / SCRA 8%!

. A*aiar vs. #a, !3 SCRA !1

/. A1 inancial Services vs. 4alerio, 22 SCRA 1

8. Bon vs. &ia, A5'. Case )o. %"3, 6ay 2/, 200", "2! SCRA 1//

!. Castane5a vs. Ao, % SCRA %12

10. 7irector vs. Bayot, /" #$il. %/!


2/10

1 . L e s l i e U i v s . A t t y . I r i s B o n i f a c i oA C # 3 3 1 9 J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 0

AC!"Leslie Ui and Carlos Ui were married on January 1971. On June 1988, Leslie

confronted the respondent Atty. ris !onifacio for the illicit a"air. #espondentadmitted the relationship and said that she will cut o" the said relationship.On $ecem%er 1988 Carlos and ris had a second child. On &arch 1989complainant pleaded to respondent to stop their illicit relationship. On Atty.ris' side, she asserts that she had no (nowled)e of Carlos' pre*iousmarria)e. Carlos Ui was the one who represented himself as sin)le durin)their courtship. +he su%mitted her Certicate of marria)e dated Oct. 198- tocourt. Upon the court's in*esti)ation it was found out that the marria)e wasin fact on Oct 1987.n the case at %ar, it is the claim of respondent Atty.!onifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she (new and %elie*ed him to %esin)le. #espondent fell in lo*e with him and they )ot married and as a result

of such marria)e, she )a*e %irth to two /0children. Upon her (nowled)e ofthe true ci*il status of Carlos Ui, she left him

I""U$hether or not Atty. ris !onifacio is )uilty of )ross immoral conduct asa)round for dis%arment

%ULI&'#2+OL32$ to A$O45 and A44#O32, as it is here%y A$O452$ and A44#O32$,the #eport and #ecommendation of the n*esti)atin) Commissioner in thea%o*e6entitled case, herein made part of this #esolution$ecision as Anne

A, and, ndin) the recommendation fully supported %y the e*idence onrecord and the applica%le laws and rules, the complaint for :ross mmoralitya)ainst #espondent is $+&++2$ for lac( of merit. Atty. ris !onifacio is#24#&A;$2$ for (nowin)ly and willfully attachin) to her Answer a falsiedCerticate of &arria)e with a stern warnin) that a repetition of the same willmerit a more se*ere penalty.

2. I& %$ CU&A&A& (9) *+il 3)- %esolution- 18 ar 19)/

acts

Con)ress passed #epu%lic Act ;um%er 97/, commonly (nown as the


3/10

the aforesaid law as an additional )round for admission. 5here are also

others who ha*e sou)ht simply the reconsideration of their )rades without,

howe*er, in*o(in) the law in @uestion. 5o a*oid inustice to indi*idual

petitioners, the court rst re*iewed the motions for reconsideration,

irrespecti*e of whether or not they had in*o(ed #epu%lic Act ;o. 97/.

Issuehether or ;ot #A ;o. 97/ is constitutional and *alid.

el

#A ;o. 97/ has for its o%ect, accordin) to its author, to admit to the !ar,

those candidates who su"ered from insuBciency of readin) materials and

inade@uate preparation.

n the udicial system from which ours has %een e*ol*ed, the admission,

suspension, dis%arment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice

of the profession and their super*ision ha*e %een indisputa%ly a udicial

function and responsi%ility. e ha*e said that in the udicial system from

which ours has %een deri*ed, the admission, suspension, dis%arment or

reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is

concededly udicial.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction %etween the functions of

the udicial and le)islati*e departments of the )o*ernment.

t is o%*ious, therefore, that the ultimate power to )rant license for the

practice of law %elon)s eclusi*ely to this Court, and the law passed %y

Con)ress on the matter is of permissi*e character, or as other authorities

may say, merely to the minimum conditions for the license.#epu%lic Act ;um%er 97/ is held to %e unconstitutional.

>. $LA&I L. %$!A vs.A!!4. $$%"& AL&% '.

"I*LICIA& (A.C. &o. 5)92. &ove67er 18, 200)/

AC!"

5his is a complaint for dis%arment led a)ainst Atty. eherson Alnor :.

+impliciano for alle)edly notariDin) se*eral documents durin) the year /EE/

after his commission as notary pu%lic had epired.

t is e*ident from the fore)oin) that when respondent notariDed the

aforementioned documents, he was not commissioned as notary pu%lic,

which was in *iolation of the ;otarial LawF for ha*in) notariDed the -9E

documents after the epiration of his commission as notary pu%lic without


4/10

ha*in) renewed said commission amountin) to )ross misconduct as a

mem%er of the le)al profession.

A)ainst the e*idence presented %y complainant, respondent did not e*en

attempt to present any e*idence. is counsel led an ex-partemotion for

etension to le answer, which was )ranted, %ut no answer was

forthcomin). +till, earin) Commissioner Lydia A. ;a*arro )a*e respondent

a last chance to le his answerF which was a)ain unheeded. 5hus,

respondent was una%le to re%ut complainant's e*idence that he was not so

commissioned for the year in @uestion. is lac( of interest and indi"erence

in presentin) his defense to the char)e and the e*idence a)ainst him can

only mean he has no stron) and *alid defense to o"er. Conclusi*ely,

respondent Atty. +impliciano is not a duly commissioned ;otary 4u%lic for

and in GueDon City for the year /EE/.

I""U$ hat is the si)nicance of the commissionH

%ULI&'

5he re@uirements for the issuance of a commission as notary pu%lic

must not %e treated as a mere casual formality. 5he Court has characteriDed

a lawyer's act of notariDin) documents without the re@uisite commission

therefore as


5/10

). uin:a vs. *uno, 19 "C%A )39

AC!"=lora Guin)wa led a *eried complaint char)in) Armando 4uno, amem%er of the !ar, with )ross immorality and misconduct. Complainant is aneducated woman, ha*in) %een a pu%lic school teacher for a num%er of years.5he respondent too( her to the +il*er &oon otel on June 1, 19-8, si)nin)the hotel re)ister as &r. and &rs. A. 4uno, and succeeded in ha*in) seualintercourse with her on the promise of marria)e. Complainant su%mitted torespondents plea for seual intercourse %ecause of respondents promise ofmarria)e and not %ecause of a desire for seual )ratication or of*oluntariness and mutual passion. Complainant )a*e %irth to a %a%y %oysupported %y a certied true copy of a %irth certicate and to show howintimate the relationship %etween the respondent and the complainant was,the latter testied that she )a*e money to the respondent whene*er he

as(ed from her.

5he respondent denied all the material alle)ations of the complaint, and as aspecial defense a*erred that the alle)ations therein do not constitute)rounds for dis%arment or suspension under section /-, #ule 1/7 of theformer #ules of Court.

I""U$ hether or not Atty. 4uno should %e dis%arredsuspended.

$L;K2+. One of the re@uirements for all applicants for admission to the!ar is that the applicant must produce %efore the +upreme Court satisfactory

e*idence of )ood moral character +ection /, #ule 1>8 of the #ules of Court0.t is essential durin) the continuance of the practice and the eercise of thepri*ile)e to maintain )ood moral character. hen his inte)rity is challen)ed%y e*idence, it is not enou)h that he denies the char)es a)ainst himF hemust meet the issue and o*ercome the e*idence for the relator and showproofs that he still maintains the hi)hest de)ree of morality and inte)rity,which at all times is epected of him. ith respect to the special defenseraised %y the respondent in his answer to the char)es of the complainantthat the alle)ations in the complaint do not fall under any of the )rounds fordis%arment or suspension of a mem%er of the !ar as enumerated in section/- of #ule 1/7 of the old0 #ules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the

statutory enumeration of the )rounds for dis%arment or suspension is not to%e ta(en as a limitation on the )eneral power of courts to suspend or dis%ara lawyer. 5he inherent powers of the court o*er its oBcers cannot %erestricted. 5imes without num%er, our +upreme Court held that an attorneywill %e remo*ed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, %utalso for )ross misconduct, which shows him to %e unt for the oBce andunworthy of the pri*ile)es which his license and the law confer upon him.+ection /7, #ule 1>8 of the #ules of court states thatI


6/10

A mem%er of the %ar may %e remo*ed or suspended from his oBce asattorney %y the +upreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other )rossmisconduct in such oBce, )rossly immoral conduct, or %y reason of hiscon*iction of a crime in*ol*in) moral turpitude, or for any *iolation of the

oath which he is re@uired to ta(e %efore admission to practice, or for a wilfulldiso%edience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly orwilfully appearin) as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so todo. 5he practice of solicitin) cases at law for the purpose of )ain, eitherpersonally or throu)h paid a)ents or %ro(ers, constitutes malpractice.

5he respondent has committed a )rossly immoral act and has, thusdisre)arded and *iolated the fundamental ethics of his profession. ndeed, itis important that mem%ers of this ancient and learned profession of law mustconform themsel*es in accordance with the hi)hest standards of morality. Asstated in para)raph /9 of the Canons of Judicial 2thicsI

5he lawyer should aid in )uardin) the %ar a)ainst the admission to theprofession of candidates unt or un@ualied %ecause decient in either moralcharacter or education. e should stri*e at all times to uphold the honor andto maintain the di)nity of the profession and to impro*e not only the law %utthe administration of ustice.

herefore, respondent Armando 4uno is here%y dis%arred and, as aconse@uence, his name is ordered stric(en o" from the #oll of Attorneys.

. %4&'


7/10

adulterously with !riccia An)eles at the same time maintainin) illicit

relations with the 18 year old Josena #oyon). 5hus renderin) him unt to

practice law, prayin) that this Court render ud)ment orderin) the

permanent remo*al of the respondent as lawyer and ud)e.

I""U$

hether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josena #oyon) and

the adulterous coha%itation of respondent with !riccia An)eles warrants

dis%arment.

$L;

Ariston O%lena was dis%arred.

%A!I

5he continued possession of a fair pri*ate and professional character or a)ood moral character is a re@uisite condition for the ri)htful continuance in

the practice of law for one who has %een admitted, and its loss re@uires

suspension or dis%arment e*en thou)h the statutes do not specify that as

)round for dis%arment.

#espondents conduct thou)h unrelated to his oBce and in no way directly

%earin) on his profession, has ne*ertheless rendered him unt and unworthy

of the pri*ile)es of a lawyer.

=ornication, if committed under such scandalous or re*oltin) circumstances

as ha*e pro*en in this case, as to shoc( common sense of decency, certainly

may ustify positi*e action %y the Court in protectin) the presti)e of the

no%le profession of the law.

As former Chief Justice &oran o%ser*edI An applicant for license to practice

law is re@uired to show )ood moral character, or what he really is, as

distin)uished from )ood reputation, or from the opinion )enerally

entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held %y the pu%lic in the place

where he is (nown.

#espondent, therefore, did not possess a )ood moral character at the time

he applied for admission to the %ar. e li*ed an adulterous life with !riccia

An)eles, and the fact that people who (new him seemed to ha*e ac@uiescedto his status, did not render him a person of )ood moral character. t is of no

moment that his immoral state was disco*ered then or now as he is clearly

not t to remain a mem%er of the %ar.

5. A7aiar vs. *a?, 93 "C%A 91=. A@1 inancial "ervices vs.


8/10

8. Alfreo Bon vs. Atty.


9/10

Atty. Arcan)el, howe*er, in notariDin) the Waiver and Quitclaim

without re@uirin) all the persons who eecuted the document to personally

appear %efore him and ac(nowled)e that the same is their free act and deed,

manifestly %reached his duty as a notary pu%lic.

;otariDation is not an empty, meanin)less, routinary act. t is

in*ested with su%stanti*e pu%lic interest, such that only those who are

@ualied or authoriDed may act as notaries pu%lic. ;otariDation con*erts a

pri*ate document into a pu%lic document thus ma(in) that document

admissi%le in e*idence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial

document is %y law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,

administrati*e a)encies and the pu%lic at lar)e must %e a%le to rely upon the

ac(nowled)ement eecuted %y a notary pu%lic and appended to a pri*ate

instrument. =or this reason, notaries pu%lic must o%ser*e with utmost care

the %asic re@uirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, thecondence of the pu%lic in the inte)rity of this form of con*eyance would %e

undermined.

9. Castanea vs. Ao, 5 "C%A 1210. ;irector vs. Bayot, =) *+il. =9

AC!"

n June 19N>, !ayot ad*ertised in a newspaper that he helps people insecurin) marria)e licensesF that he does so a*oidin) delays and pu%licityFthat he also ma(es marria)e arran)ementsF that le)al consultations are freefor the poorF and that e*erythin) is condential. 5he $irector of #eli)iousA"airs too( notice of the ad and so he sued !ayot for &alpractice.

!ayot initially denied ha*in) pu%lished the ad*ertisement. !ut later, headmitted the same and as(ed for the court's mercy as he promised to ne*errepeat the act a)ain.

I""U$ hether or not !ayot is )uilty of &alpractice.

$L;Kes. +ection /- of #ule 1/7 epressly pro*ides amon) other thin)sthat


10/10

well6merited reputation for professional capacity and delity to trust. !ut%ecause of !ayot's plea for leniency and his promise and the fact that he didnot earn any case %y reason of the ad, the +upreme Court merelyreprimanded him.

ethics case digests 1

Documents