BATAS PINAS

REMINDER TO OUR LAW ENFORCERS:

BSP STATEMENT ON ONLINE GAMBLING

𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐊𝐀𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐘𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐒𝐄𝐗𝐘 𝐏𝐇𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐒?

YABUT v. ATTY. MARISSA V. MANALO
A.C. No. 10295
August 30, 2017

A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Marissa V. Manalo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct:

1. For having an illicit affair with the complainant's husband.
2. For posting of allegedly "indecent" pictures on her social media account.

When the respondent posted several allegedly "indecent" images on her social media account, the complainant questioned the respondent's conduct as a member of the bar.

Ruling:

Regarding the inappropriate pictures, we do not deem the respondent's act of publishing her pictures to her social media accounts, in which she presents herself in a seductive manner, to be egregiously immoral. We are not inclined to declare that the act was grossly immoral, even if the type of pictures the respondent uploaded does not properly illustrate and represent how a lawyer, who is an officer of the court, should act in the eyes of the public.

Immoral conduct has been described 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. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

𝐀𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫:
The evidence(s) presented was rendered inadmissible on technicalities.

The complainant has provided electronic evidence, which must adhere to the requirements of admissibility set forth by the Rules of Court and applicable laws, as well as be authenticated in accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

Without any indication of authentication, the complainant only presented the email transcripts as evidence. Therefore, it is not accepted if the requirements for the above-mentioned authentication proof are not met.

The complainant's husband and the respondent are shown in a photo, but this does not necessarily prove that they are having an illicit relationship.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫?

A: Dismissed.

P. (2019, October 14). Lawyer’s sexy photos on FB, NOT immoral; electronic evidence in disbarment cases. Project Jurisprudence. https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/10/lawyer-sexy-photos-immoral-electronic-evidence-ac-no-10295-yabut-v-manalo.html

Disbarment Case:

QUINGWA VS. PUNO (19 SCRA 439)

COMPLAINANT: FLORA QUINGWA

RESPONDENT: ARMANDO PUNO


FACTS: Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. Complainant is an educated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of years. The respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual in*******se with her on the promise of marriage. Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual in*******se because of respondent's promise of marriage and not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion.

Complainant gave birth to a baby boy supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate and to show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her. The respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.



ISSUE: Whether Atty. Puno should be disbarred/suspended.



HELD: YES.

One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court). It is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege to maintain good moral character. When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer.

The inherent powers of the court over its officers cannot be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of court states that: A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality.

As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice. Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.



Read the full case here: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb1967/ac_389_1967.html

Disbarment Case:

Rosalie P. Domingo vs. Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan

A.C. No. 12475, March 26, 2019
COMPLAINANT: Rosalie P. Domingo
RESPONDENT: Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan

FACTS:

Rosalie Domingo alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. Jorge Sacdalan to recover possession of a parcel of land from illegal settlers. The subject land is co-owned by Rosalie Domingo with her sister, and is located at Binangonan, Rizal. According to Domingo, she gave Atty. Sacdalan an acceptance fee of P75,000.00, wherein P50,000.00 was paid on June 10, 2016; while the remaining P25,000.00 was paid on June 27, 2016. She further claimed that on July 12, 2016, she gave Atty. Sacdalan another P50,000.00 as deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected litigation. After barangay conciliation proceedings failed, Domingo instructed Atty. Sacdalan to file the appropriate case in court.

On August 16, 2016, Atty. Sacdalan sent an e-mail to Domingo seeking to borrow another P200,000.00 in the form of a cash advance, which would allegedly be charged against his appearance fees and other fees. He claimed that he was borrowing money for his wife's hospitalization. Domingo agreed to respondent's request for cash advance and gave him P100,000.00 out of compassion.

However, Atty. Sacdalan did not give any updates to Domingo regarding the case filed. Thus, she inquired directly with the MTC on the status of her case. To her surprise, she was informed that there was no such complaint for ejectment filed with the MTC. Consequently, Domingo confronted Atty. Sacdalan about the purported ejectment complaint. The latter explained that the non-filing of the complaint was due to the mistake of his office staff and assured her that the complaint would be filed.

As Rosalie Domingo was disappointed with Atty. Sacdalan's services, she issued an e-mail on October 20, 2016, cancelling their legal contract and demanding the return of the P50,000.00 deposit and P100,000.00 cash advance. On the other hand, Atty. Luis Martin V. Tan was hired by Domingo to contact Atty. Sacdalan. The latter committed to refund the P100,000.00 cash loan and P50,000.00 deposit by November 30, 2016 but Atty. Sacdalan broke his promise.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

Yes. Attorney Jorge C. Sacdalan confessed the forgery but blamed his messenger for the offense. Attorney Sacdalan violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by giving a forged receiving copy of the complaint to his client, so deceiving the latter into filing the case. As a lawyer, Atty. Sacdalan was prohibited from participating in illegal, dishonest, immoral, or deceptive behavior in all of his contacts with others, particularly with clients whom he was expected to serve with competence and diligence.

READ MORE AT: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3595/

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2019, March 26). Rosalie P. Domingo Vs. Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan. Supreme Court of the Philippines. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3595/

Disbarment Case:
Crisanta G. Hosoya Vs. Atty. Allan C. Contado

A.C. No. 10731. October 5, 2021

COMPLAINANT: Crisanta G. Hosoya

RESPONDENT: Atty. Allan C. Contado

FACTS:

Complainant Crisanta G. Hosoya filed a Complaint for Disbarment charging respondent Atty. Allan C. Contado with violations of the Lawyers' Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Crisanta claimed that she met Atty. Contado in 2003. She alleged that he immediately courted her and represented that he was already separated-in-fact from his wife. Atty. Contado also mentioned that he was already working out the dissolution for his marriage through a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. In 2010, Crisanta agreed with Atty. Contado’s proposal to live together as husband and wife. During that time, however, Crisanta discovered that Atty. Contado was also cohabiting with and impregnated other women (apart from her). Despite the knowledge of these, Crisanta admitted that she continued living with him and their cohabitation resulted in two children. Later on, things got complicated, and their relationship turned sour. Crista claimed that they were having financial problems, and that Atty. Contado left her alone in settling the obligations. At this point, the parties were constrained to move to another place. She also claimed that she and her children no longer received support from Atty. Contado despite demand. Moreover, she alleged that Atty. Contado took her vehicle and despite demand to return it, Atty. Contado did not do so. Crisanta alleged in her complaint that Atty. Contado’s acts constituted continuous violations of several laws: RA 7610, RA 9262 or and carnapping. In response, Atty. Contado denied the allegations in the Complaint. He indeed confirmed having a relationship with the complainant but denied that having remised his obligations to them. He even attached receipts and deposit slips to show that he is sending money and supplies to Crisanta. He also admitted that the car was still in his possession because the same still needs to be repaired.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Contado violated Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

Yes.

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A law shall likewise faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to the clients. For the imposition of the penalty of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the conduct complained of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral. In the instant case, Atty. Contado’s statements made it clear to the court that he abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with Crisanta that resulted in two children. Such admission can serve as to find him guilty of violating the CPR for committing grossly immoral acts. It is well-settled that a married person’s abandonment of his or her spouse to live with and cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or concubinage. As to the return of the subject vehicle, the ourt finds that the excuse given by Atty. Contado is flimsy and unacceptable. Refusal to return property despite lawful demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt. Failure to pay debt despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct. Thus, the Court finds Atty. Allan C. Contado guilty of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law effective upon receipt of this Decision. His name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Read the full case here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/23248